Russ,
I never thought about this as an update to RFC 5921. If we publish
this document as is, every syllable of RFC 5921 remains unchanged.
This is hardly an update.
/Loa
On 2014-01-04 01:30, Russ Housley wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2014-01-02
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: Ready for publication.
Question:
Should this document be an update to the MPLS-TP Framework (RFC 5921)?
I am not sure. RFC 5921 does make it clear that it covers only point-
to-point transport paths. The answer may be further complicated by
the fact that RFC 5921 is joint work with the ITU-T.
Major Concerns: None.
Minor Concerns: None.
Other Comments:
In the first sentence of Section 1, please define MPLS-TP as follows:
OLD:
The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile is the ...
NEW:
The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is ...
Please add TE-LSP to the terms defined in Section 1.2.
In Section 5.1, I cannot understand this sentence:
Per [RFC6373], the definitions of P2MP, [RFC4875], and GMPLS
recovery, [RFC4872] and [RFC4873], do not explicitly cover their
interactions.
I think that the references are getting in the way. I think the
message is: "the definitions of P2MP and GMPLS recovery do not
explicitly cover their interactions." If I am correct, then some
commas need to be removed.
The phrase "MPLS Transport Profile" appears many places, and it would
be easier if they were replaces with "MPLS-TP" for consistency.
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64