Subject: [mpls] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 08:02:04 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some nits and a question:

3.  MPLS-TP Ring Protection Criteria and Requirements
a.  The number of OAM entities...

"Each ring-node requires only one instance of the RPS protocol. " --- not
super important, but is this "Each ring-node requires only one instance
of the RPS protocol (regardless of the number of rings)" or "Each
ring-node requires only one instance of the RPS protocol per ring"? -- if
a node participates in multiple rings, does it need an instance for each
ring? (I suspect that this is somewhat of an implementation choice, but
am not sure).

4.  Shared Ring Protection Architecture
4.1.  Ring Tunnel
"... ring tunnels which provides a server layer
   for the LSPs traverse the ring."
I think "for the LSP's traversing the ring." (or perhaps "which traverse
the ring.")