Subject: [mpls] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-04

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 01:52:53 +0100

Working Group,

this is to start a two week working group last call on:

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-04

The draft has been updated after the earlier working group
last call. A mail describing how the comments has been
resolved will be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg05832.html

A diff from the previous version will be found at:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers/history/

click on "diff from -03".

Please send comments to [email-masked].

This working group last call ends on March 18, 2011.

/Loa

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:49:18 +0100

Hi

Editorial comments:
1. Introduction: "identifiers to be used in within the" choose either
"in" or "within" not both.
2. Section 2 (just before the bulleted list): s/follow/following/
3. Section 3 s/and or/and/
4. Section 3 s/An The/The/
5. Section 3 - it would be nice if you could clarify that "Operator"
here is a "Service Provider" rather than e.g. a mathematical operator =)
6. Section 3.1 s/and finally and attachment circuit/and, finally, an
attachment circuit/
7. Just a suggestion - change "It has nothing to do with" to "It is not
related to"
8. Section 4 & several other places in the document - s/(see section
Section 5.1/(see Section 5.1)/
9. Section 5.1 - s/the format of the format of a Tunnel_ID/the format of
a Tunnel_ID/
10. Section 5.2.1 - s/For a co-routed/A co-routed/
11. Section 5.2.2 (second sentence) - s/The each/Each/
12. Section 5.3 - s/Likewise, the East/Likewise, for the East/

Questions for clarification -
1. Section 4 - "Note that MPLS-TP supports hierarchical tunnels.  The
attachment point to a MPLS-TP Tunnel at any sub layer requires a unique
IF_ID." - what level of uniqueness are you referring to - unique within
the node?
2. Section 5 - "The corresponding ICC-based version of this identifier
would be:
 
East-ICC::East-Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::West-ICC::West-Node_ID::West-Tu
nnel_Num::LSP_Num" - Why is this pointed out for the LSP and not, for
example, for the Tunnel_ID?  Wouldn't it have been simpler to just
define the Global Node_ID to have the two variants?

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>> Behalf Of ext [email-masked]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:53 AM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Subject: [mpls-tp] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-04
>> 
>> 
>> Working Group,
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls-tp mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp