Dear Joel, Thank you for your comments.
We have updated the MPLS LDP MT draft and have clarified the Multi-Topology Identifiers, figure 10 shows the initial MT-ID registry values: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-11#section-9 We have also defined (and documented in the draft) that a new Internet-Draft will be created to document the policy and process for allocating future MT-IDs values from the LDP MT Name Space. Re: Network byte order The implementers chose the sequence format so that MT-ID was added intentionally after IP Prefix to emphasise it as an extension to existing IP Prefix. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: October 18, 2013 10:31 AM To: A. Jean Mahoney Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; IETF discussion list Subject: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 18-October-2013 IETF LC End Date: 6-November-2013 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. I believe there is one major issue that is easily addressed. Major issues: I may have simply missed this reviewing the document, but as far as I can tell there is no specification of the relationship between the MT-IDs in this document and the MT-IDs used elsewhere. Yes, I can take a guess at the intent. But is it stated somewhere that these are the same IDs negotiated in the relevant IGP? Or is there some other intent? Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: I find it odd that the MT-ID follows the IP prefix in the various formats. Yes, the computer can parse both. But since we tend to think in Network byte order, I expect more significant information (MT-ID) to occur before less significant information (IP prefix within topology.) _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
