Russ/Adrian,
A couple of editorial points:
On 1/4/2014 8:28 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Russ,
Thanks for the review.
Agreed!
...
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.
Actually, this is a good catch as it really should say: "Traffic
Engineered P2MP LSP" and "Traffic Engineered multipoint-to-multipoint LSPs".
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.
How about:
[RFC6373] notes that recovery techniques for Traffic Engineered P2MP
LSPs are not formally defined, and such that a definition is needed. A
formal definition will be based on existing RFCs and may not require any
new protocol mechanisms but, nonetheless, should be documented. GMPLS
recovery is defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. Protection of P2MP LSPs
is also discussed in [RFC6372] Section 4.7.3.
The phrase "MPLS Transport Profile" appears many places, and it would
be easier if they were replaces with "MPLS-TP" for consistency.
Sure.
OK
We'll have a version ready to go soon and will coordinate with Adrian on
publication.
Thanks again,
Lou