Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements-05.txt> (Requirements for MPLS-TP Shared Mesh Protection)

From: Jeong Ryoo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:30:44 +0000

Adiran, thank you for your comments.

They certainly improve the document, and will be incorporated in the next version.

Best regards,

Jeong-dong

________________________________
보낸 사람 : "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
보낸 날짜 : 2014-06-09 23:27:08 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
참조 : [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
제목 : RE: Last Call: (Requirements for MPLS-TP Shared Mesh Protection) to Informational RFC

Here are some comments from my review as AD that need to get handled as part of
IETF last call.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Could you expand "p2p" where it is first used?

---

The very first sentence is hard to parse

MPLS transport networks can be characterized as being a network of
connections between nodes within a mesh of nodes and the links
between them.

Maybe try

The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) provides tools to construct and
operate a set of connections between nodes in an MPLS network. The
MPLS network is a mesh comprising nodes and the links between them.

---

I understand that you want to use RFC 2119 language to clarify the
requirements, but RFC 2119 was developed for specifying protocols, so
the direct reference and boilerplate quote is incongruous. I suggest
you use the language as found in RFC 5654, viz.:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Although this document is not a protocol specification, the use of
this language clarifies the instructions to protocol designers
producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in this
document.

---

In Section 5.1 you have

the control
protocol SHOULD NOT be used as the primary resilience mechanism.

I agree, but I think that the term "primary resilience mechanism" may be
under defined. Can you do anything to clarify this? Maybe...

the control
protocol SHOULD NOT be used as the primary mechanism for detecting or
reporting network failures, or for initiating or coordinating
protection switch-over. That is, it SHOULD NOT be used as the
primary resilience mechanism.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: 09 June 2014 15:10
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mpls] Last Call:
> (Requirements for MPLS-TP Shared Mesh Protection) to Informational RFC
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
> - 'Requirements for MPLS-TP Shared Mesh Protection'
> as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2014-06-23.