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