ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05

2014-01-04 07:28:45
Hi Russ,

Thanks for the review.

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.

I don't think so.
That is, it is perfectly acceptable to build a P2P MPLS-TP system and that
system could be built on protocol solutions that do not include P2MP support.

As you say, 5921 explicitly says:

   This document defines the subset of the MPLS-TP applicable in general
   and to point-to-point transport paths.  The remaining subset,
   applicable specifically to point-to-multipoint transport paths, is
   outside the scope of this document.

...so an "updates" relationship would render this statement doubtful.

I'm pretty comfortable with the documents being separate.

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 ...

Sure.

Please add TE-LSP to the terms defined in Section 1.2.

Sure.

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.

Yes, you're right. And a minor rewrite could make this even clearer.

The phrase "MPLS Transport Profile" appears many places, and it would
be easier if they were replaces with "MPLS-TP" for consistency.

OK


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>