Subject: [mpls] Re: Last Call: 'Label Switching Router Self-Test' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test)

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:04:35 +0300

I read this document and in general I believe that it's well and clear
written. I have a couple of technical issues and a few editorial nits

1. The document is sharing allocation space and refers in several places
to [LSP-Ping] which is also listed as a Normative Reference. I could not
however clearly identify what document is that, as no I-D is provided.
Did this reference become in the meantime RFC4379? 

In any case, there are a few problems with the shared IANA allocations:
- Section 2.1 makes a provisional allocation for FEC element type 130,
which is not mentioned in the IANA Considerations section
- Section 3.1 makes a provisional assignment for two message types
without mentioning IANA
- Section 3.2 mentions the need for allocation of a new UDP port, but
the IANA Considerations does not mention it. I also guess that this is a
non-system port, but there is no mention of this in the document, would
be good to clarify

2. The document lacks any information about operational impact and
management issues. I believe that it should state as a minimum in the
security considerations section that any control interface that allows
for packets generation needs to be properly access-secured and that the
levels of test traffic must be kept within reasonable limits, so that
they do not impact the performance of the LSRs involved in the tests or
the levels of traffic in the network. 

Editorial nits:

1. As LSR and MPLS are expanded in the Abstract section it would be nice
and consistent to expand also FEC. 
2. Section 3.1, last sentence in the first paragraph - there is a double
appearance of 'the'
3. Section 3.4, last sentence:
'It is RECOMMENDED that testing of label imposition SHOULD NOT be
performed in such circumstances as the Verification Request will in most
case travel multiple hops'. One of RECOMMENDED or SHOULD NOT can be
dropped, also s/case/cases. 

Thanks.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:04 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Last Call: 'Label Switching Router Self-Test' to Proposed
Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test) 

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching
WG
 
to consider the following document:

- 'Label Switching Router Self-Test '
   <draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2006-09-08.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-06.txt

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:25:07 +0300

Editorial nits:

Thanks.

Dan