Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09.txt

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:32:32 +0200

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://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

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-enhanced-dsmap-09.txt
Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review Date: June 1st, 2011
IETF LC End Date: May 30th, 2011
Intended Status: Standards Track

Sorry for the delay.
Regards,
Martin

---
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication.

Major Issues:
   No major issues found

Minor Issues:
   I only found one minor issue.
   From Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3 it is not clear whether the new Return
   Code "See DDM TLV for Return Code and Return SubCode" is to be used
   (in the echo reply header) only if there are multiple DDMAP TLVs in
   this reply or if it may/could/should/must also be used in case there
   is only a single DDMAP TLV.

Comments:
   This document is well written. The motivation section is really
   valuable. The procedures are sufficiently well described to avoid
   confusion.

Nits:
   There is quite a number of nits in this document.

Figure numbering is arguable. Figure 10 is missing, Figure 3 does not 
have a description and in my opinion, figures 3, 5, 9, 14 and the 
unidentified Figure 10, are not figures.

A reference to stiching procedures would be valuable.

LSP-Ping is used inconsistently throughout the document (LSP ping,
LSP-Ping, LSP Ping, LSP-ping, ...). Please use only one.

The document uses both echo reply and echo response. Based on RFC 4379,
I believe the appropriate terminology would be echo reply.

Section 1
    This documents describes methods for performing LSP ping (specified
s/documents/document/

Section 1
    in [RFC4379] traceroute over MPLS tunnels.  The techniques in
s/in [RFC4379]/in [RFC4379])/

Section 2
    happening at router C. With current LSP Ping [[RFC4379]] mechanisms,
s/[[RFC4379]]/[RFC4379]/

Section 3.3
    Downstream Mapping object is a request that Downstream Detailed
s/Downstream Mapping/Downstream Detailed Mapping/

Section 3.3.1.1
    The multipath data sub-TLV includes information multipath
s/information//

Section 3.3.1.1
    information.  The TLV fields and their usage is as defined in
s/TLV/sub-TLV/

Section 4.1.1
    PUSHed.  The label MUST be encoded as per Figure 7.The label value
s/Figure 7.The/Figure 7. The/

Section 4.3.3
    topology based off the Return Code per ECMP path/P2MP branch.
s/based off/based on/

---

From: Nitin Bahadur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:21:02 -0700

Hi Martin,

  Thanks for review. I have addressed the nits and added the reference to LSP stitching. Regarding the one minor comment, please see below..

Thanks
Nitin

On 6/1/11 5:32 AM, "Martin Vigoureux" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Minor Issues:

Updated Section 3.2.1 to say

          This Return Code MUST be used when there are
          multiple downstreams for a given node (such as P2MP or ECMP), and
          the node needs to return a different Return Code/Return SubCode for
          each downstream. This Return Code MAY be used when there is
          only 1 downstream for a given node.

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:59:08 +0200

Hi Nitin,

thanks. That addresses the issue I raised.

martin

Le 07/06/2011 02:21, Nitin Bahadur a écrit :
> On 6/1/11 5:32 AM, "Martin Vigoureux"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
> Minor Issues: