Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions-02

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:53:06 -0400

I’ve been selected as an MPLS-RT reviewer
for draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions, which is currently a candidate for
MPLS WG adoption.

This draft documents the extensions required to LDP in order to signal
resilient MPLS ring LSPs, based on the architecture for RMRs described
in draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-02.

The MPLS WG has already accepted RMR work in general as a WG project, so
the primary question for draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions-02 isn’t
whether or not the draft should be accepted as a WG draft, but rather is it
ready for WG adoption?

In general, I found the described extensions to LDP, and their operation,
clearly written to the extent that they can easily be the basis for WG
input and review. The authors have taken the draft to the point where wider
WG review that would result from adoption is necessary.

Thus, my opinion is that the draft is ready for WG adoption at this time.

I have one nit that can be resolved either before or after adoption. In
section 4.2.2, the section begins:

   A node X wishing to participate in LDP RMR signaling SHOULD negotiate
   the RMR capability with all its neighbors.

I would think that should be a MUST rather than a SHOULD.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:39:39 +0200

All,

I am one of the selected MPLS-RT reviewers 
for draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr-extensions.
This draft is currently a candidate for MPLS WG adoption.

The draft describes extensions required to LDP for signalling resilient 
MPLS ring LSPs
to be used in the RMR architecture described in draft-ietf-mpls-rmr.

The described extensions to LDP, and their operation, are written 
clearly enough for
WG input and review. I think wider WG review will enhance the description.

My opinion is that the current draft is ready for WG adoption.

I have a few nits that can be addressed before or after adoption.

In section 4.2.2, the section begins:

IMHO the SHOULD should be a MUST.

The same remark for the last paragraph in section 4.2.3.

    When the node is no longer part of the ring, it SHOULD tear down its
    egress LSPs - CW and AC - by sending a label withdraw message.

The links in figures 1 and 3 should be drawn more clearly.
In figure 3. there are two nodes R9.

Cheers, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...