Subject: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:27:18 -0000

Hello,

I have done my AD review of your draft. I have a list of small edits
I would like you to make before we issue the IETF last call.

I will wait for a new revision.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

You have included the pre-November 2008 copyright statement. The first
version was posted after November 2008. Do you really need this
statement?

---

Please clean up the unused reference [RFC 4385]

---

In Section 2

   It is recommended that any protocol solution, meeting one or more

   functional requirement(s), be the same for PWs, LSPs, and Sections.

Is this recommendation made by this document or by the referenced 
RFC 5860? If the latter, can you make this clear. If the former, I am
not sure of the context for your recommendation.

---

In Section 2

   The following document-set addresses the basic requirements listed
   above:

The third bullet does not seem to cite a document.

---
           
Section 4

This section contains

   Editor's note:
    
      Only RFCs will be referenced in the final version of the document.

Can you remove this now?

You then have...

   The following table (Table 1) provides the summary of proactive
   MPLS-TP OAM Fault Management toolset functions, associated tool/
   protocol, and the corresponding IETF RFCs or Internet drafts where
   they are defined.

There are no I-Ds in the table. Same applies to the text about each of
other tables.

Also, in the three tables you have a column headed "RFCs / Internet
Drafts". Again, there are no I-Ds in the tables.

---

Section 5.4

   The protocols for Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) and A Link Down
   Indication (LDI) are defined in [RFC 6427].

s/A/a/

---

Section 5.5

   The RDI OAM function is supported by the use of Bidirectional
   Forwarding Detection (BFD) Control Packets [RFC 6428???].  RDI is
   only used for bidirectional connections and is associated with
   proactive CC-CV activation.

Please resolve "???"

---

Section 7

I think you might summarise the security available for the different OAM
mechanisms and the issues that don't need to be addressed because of the
OAM running on the ACH.

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:42:40 +0100

Hi Adrian,
Thank you for your review.
We will make the edit and notify you when a new version is submitted. 
Best regards,
Nurit and Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Adrian Farrel
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

Hello,

Thanks,
Adrian

---

---

---

In Section 2

---

In Section 2

---
           
Section 4

This section contains

   Editor's note:

Can you remove this now?

You then have...

---

Section 5.4

s/A/a/

---

Section 5.5

Please resolve "???"

---

Section 7

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls