Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last callfordraft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:17:13 -0000

Hi,

I have been very tardy, so none of my notes below should be considered 
blocking on my account, nor even a request for a change.

You may want to consider them for any future revision.

Cheers,
Adrian

>> Abstract
>> s/carried onto/carried by/
>> s/referred to as unconstrained TE LSP/referred to as unconstrained TE 
>> LSPs/
===
Section 2

s/Label Switched Path(s) (TE LSP)/Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs)/
s/assumption about/assumptions about/
s/(Label Switching Router)/(Label Switching Routers)/
===
Section 2

   Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a
   management system MAY not be included in the count that is reported.

The use of "MAY not" is ambiguous. People will be unclear whether you 
actually mean "MAY NOT".

I think you want...

   Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a
   management system MAY be omitted from the count that is reported.
===
>> Section 2
>>  "Furthermore, the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
>>   signalled across each link can be used for other purposes (for
>>   example to evaluate the number of affected TE LSPs in case of a link
>>   failure)."
>> Wouldn't this function be better if we knew the actual number of TE LSPs 
>> on a link rather than only the number of zero bandwidth TE LSPs? Since we 
>> don't propose an extension that simply counts the number of TE LSPs, 
>> perhaps it would be simpler to delete this paragraph.

> JP> Well for the number of deployed networks with 0-bw TE LSPs used for 
> FRR
> purposes, it might still be useful to know the number of 0-bw TE LSPs.

Then you probably want...

   Furthermore, the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
   signalled across each link can be used for other purposes (for
   example to evaluate the number of affected unconstrained TE LSPs in
   case of a link failure).
===
Section 3
s/The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) Sub-TLV is defined/The Unconstrained 
TE LSP Count Sub-TLV is defined/
===
Section 3.2
s/If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is 
present/If a second instance of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count Sub-TLV is 
present/
===
>> Section 6
>> Is finger really the right protocol to reference for ISIS security?

Are you still *really* sure you want to reference RFC 1194? Don't you mean 
RFC 1195?

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