Hi Patrice,
Thanks for reviewing the draft.
Please see comments inline.
On 5/10/17, 6:15 PM, "Min Ye" <amy(_dot_)yemin(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> wrote:
Reviewer: Patrice Brissette
Review result: Has Issues
[Resending to RTG-DIR]
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG
review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
the Routing Directorate, please see
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_rtg_trac_wiki_RtgDir&d=DwIDaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=MWIXfe7E_gFwWZFrsVPpNTa6EQimCGFx-G3sIjMLbMg&s=tA3NumQERHERuYDYA0CCprq36__MHGLfZU3E8YypvVg&e=
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-02.txt
Reviewer: Patrice Brissette
Review Date: May 10, 2017
IETF LC End Date: May 12, 2017
Intended Status: Standard Track
Summary:
• I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should
be resolved before publication.
Comments:
• Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
• Include anything else that you think will be helpful toward
understanding your review.
Major Issues:
• "No major issues found."
Minor Issues:
• Technically, I think the draft is completed. However, it doesn’t
flow very well. Information is all over. I suggest the authors to
review the layout/flow of the document.
Here are my “detailed” comments:
Abstract — What is the plus value on that draft? No clear
Many Long sentences in the text. very hard to understand and follow.
Syntax to be improved.
I went over the abstract, I didn’t see any long sentences. Not sure
What to improve? Can you be specific?
Introduction
Typo : “A reference model or a P2MP PW is depicted in Figure 1 below”
“In this document, we specify a method of signaling P2MP
PW using LDP.” —> suggest to move it from intro to abstract
Not sure if we can reference a figure in the abstract. The abstract
Already mention that the second sentence.
Also, make sure the 3rd person is used. Try to a void “we” usage
Agreed, I will remove all usage of “we” in the document.
May I suggest to have a requirement section. Requirements are all over
the document.
There is already an RFC for that. [RFC7338] F. Jounay, et. al,
"Requirements for Point to Multipoint Pseudowire", RFC7338, September 2014.
This solution document addresses the requirements.
“ In case of mLDP, a Leaf-PE can decide to join the P2MP LSP at any
time; whereas in the case of RSVP-TE, the P2MP LSP is set up by
the
R-PE, generally at the initial service provisioning time. It
should
be noted that local policy can override any decision to join, add
or
prune existing or new L-PE(s) from the tree. In any case, the PW
setup can ignore these differences, and simply assume that the
P2MP
PSN LSP is available when needed
“
Quite complex to follow. Missing to “why” / explanation.
Sure I can clarify this a little more, will remove some sentences
That make it confusing, we are simply here differentiating mLDP LSP from
p2mp LSP w/ RSVP-TE and saying that PW setup is agnostic of the transport
p2mp LSP setup.
“The LDP liberal label retention mode is used“
Another requirement… is that a MAY, SHOULD, MUST?
I will change it to a MUST.
“In this case, a PW status message with status
code of 0x00000008 (Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault)
MUST
also be sent to the R-PE“
How? The L-PE fails to join the P2MP PSN LSP.
Correct the L-PE have to signal this failure to the root PE.
Section 2.2
“ Note that since the LDP label mapping message is only sent by the
R-
PE to all the L-PEs, it is not possible to negotiate any interface
parameters.“
Why is that note there? Is that already been mentioned previously.
This is the only reference in the document.
Fig.4 must be moved to proper in the text OR create 2 subsection in
2.2
Sorry didn’t get what you mean here? Can you elaborate?
“As such, PW status negotiation procedure
described in [RFC4447bis] is not applicable to P2MP PW. A node
MUST
NOT claim to be P2MP PW capable by sending a LDP P2MP PW
Capability
TLV if it is not also capable of handling PW status“
Should a node send LDP P2MP PW Capability TLV or not? Not well explain
What is said here, that you can’t be P2MP PW capable without being PW status
capable.
Not sure how to make it clearer.
There is some reference to LSR in the text where the major part use
the wording “node”.
I will make all consistent, and use LSR instead of node.
Thanks,
Sami
Nits:
N/A
Regards,
Patrice Brissette