Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> (Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:11:39 -0400

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
Reviewer: Andy Malis
Review Date: 24 September 2015
IETF LC End Date: 25 September 2015
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue
and some nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

This review is based on the file
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt .

This is probably one of the most reviewed drafts I have ever seen, going
back to when it was an individual draft and then through its various stages
in (and back to) the working group. Thanks to its many reviews and
reviewers, the draft is technically correct and generally easy to follow.
Thus, there is very little to add at this stage.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

On Sept. 17, Joel Halpern wrote the Gen-art Review for this draft.

I agree with his comment regarding the address stack, and his proposed
sentence to be added to section 3.2.

Nits:

The abbreviation AN for Access Node is defined slightly after its first
use, which is earlier in the same line in the document (line 197 in the
.txt file).

On lines 303 and 363, the word "octets" is misspelled.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:06 PM, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
> - 'Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping'
>   <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> 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 2015-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment
>    scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and
>    Traceroute", a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the
>    available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to
>    the initiator would be discarded resulting in false negatives or
>    complete failure of operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute.  This
>    document describes extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the
>    replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a
>    set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator.  This document
>    updates RFC 4379.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ballot/
>
>
> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
>
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1945/
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/828/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

---

From: Lizhong Jin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:15:55 +0800

Hi Andy,
Thanks for the review. See inline below.

Lizhong

> sentence to be added to section 3.2.
[Lizhong] I proposed to add the following, and waiting for his confirmation.
This stack grows downward, with relay node addresses further along the
LSP appearing lower down in the stack. Please refer to section 4.2 for the
relay node discovery mechanism.

> On lines 303 and 363, the word "octets" is misspelled.
[Lizhong] good catch. Thanks.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:57:10 -0400

Lizhong,

> This stack grows downward, with relay node addresses further along the LSP appearing
> lower down in the stack. Please refer to section 4.2 for the relay node
> discovery mechanism.
>

If this is acceptable to Joel, I'm good with it as well.

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:00:40 -0400

Lizhong,

Responding to myself, I just saw Joel's email, so we're both good with this
addition.

Thanks,
Andy

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> LSP appearing lower down in the stack. Please refer to section 4.2 for
>> the relay node discovery mechanism.
>>
>