Hi Christer, Thank you very much for reviewing the draft in detail and for your valid comments. We, the authors of the draft, will incorporate your comments. B.R. Weiqiang Cheng
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2017年5月17日 20:49 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected] 主题: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05.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> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 17 May 2017 IETF LC End Date: 12 May 2017 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: The document is well written, but there are a few issues I¹d like the authors to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: ------------- Section 4.1.3: The text says: "When an MPLS-TP transport path, such as an LSP, enters the ring,Š² The ³such as an LSP² statement is confusing. Could there be something else than LSP? Section 4.4: Would it be useful to say that, for a given ring, an interconnect node acts as an egress node for that ring, meaning that all LSPs using the interconnect node will use the same tunnel within the ring? Section 4.4.2: The text says: "The service LSPs that traverse the interconnected rings use separate ring tunnels on each ring, and the LSPs on different rings are stitched by the interconnection node.² It¹s unclear to me what ³separate tunnels² mean. As there are two different rings, there will obviously be separate tunnels. Or, do you mean to say something else? Section 5.1: The first sentence says: "The MSRP protection operation MUST be controlled with the help of the Ring Protection Switch protocol (RPS).² I think it would be good to have a few introduction sentences of the RPS protocol, before mandating the usage of it. The text says: "The RPS protocol MUST carry the ring status information and RPS requests, either automatically initiated or externally initiated, between the ring nodes.² This text is a little confusing. Is this a protocol requirement, or a protocol usage requirement? Similar to my previous comments, a generic introduction to the protocol, and the requirements it has to fulfil, would be useful. In addition, that text should reference to section 5.3 for the justification of defining a new protocol in the first place. Editorial Issues: ----------------- Generic: In the document you use both ³ring node² and ³ring-node² terminology. Unless there is a reason for that, please use consistent terminology. Section 1: The text says: "As described in [RFC5654], MPLS-TP requirements, section 2.5.6.1" Šand later: "described in section 2.5.6.1 of [RFC5654]." Please use consistent wording. Section 3: I like the way the section describes how the requirements have been met. As I assume most of the solutions are described more in detail elsewhere in the document, I wonder whether it would be possible to add references? Something like: "For detailed information, see section x.x.x.x." Section 4.1: The text says: "A port can carry multiple ring tunnels, and a ring tunnel can carry multiple LSPs." I think it would be good to add a picture showing a port carrying multiple ring tunnels, carrying multiple LSPs. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
