Subject: [mpls] Comments to draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-04

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:00:53 -0500

Dear Authors, et al.,
Please kindly consider my comments to the document:
*       Section 3.3 Specific configuration of DCN should not required. It should be sufficient to require that the DCN exists and provides full connectivity to all LSRs in SPMG.
*       Shared protection for bi-directional co-routed p2p LSP can represent separate study case. Would encourage narrowing the scope to this special case and leaving other cases for further study.
*       Section 3.6.2 How does tail LER knows the N number, number of SENs it must inform? Can number of SENs change, be dynamic parameter? How's the tail LER will know their identities?
*       Section 4.1 Would suggest to add ASCII-art figure of a Shared Mesh Protection message itself.
*       Section 4.1 SMP message has its own versioning. What is the value?

        Regards,
                Greg