Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05.txt

Tue, 23 May 2017 15:36:52 -0700

Hej Christer,

As I mentioned in my previous email I have discussed your
questions and comments with the co-authors of this draft.

Please find our response in line [Huub].

We hope that we have provided the required clarification.

Best regards, Huub.
---


Between ourselves:

here is my suggested reply to Christer in line [Huub]

On 17/05/2017 14:49, Christer Holmberg wrote:
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?

[Huub] the MPLS-TP transport path is an LSP.
Change the text to: "when an MPLS-TP transport path, i.e. an LSP, enters..."

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?

[Huub] indeed useful.
Change text to: "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?

[Huub] indeed separate tunnels are used.
Change the text to:  "The service LSPs that traverse the interconnected rings
use a ring tunnels in each ring, and the traversing LSPs are stitched in the
interconnection node."

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.

[Huub] Understood. A short introduction of the purpose of the RPS protocol
can be added.
(we will try to have text ready before the IESG telechat)

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.
[Huub] text can be added for clarification.
Change the text as follows:  "The RPS protocol MUST distribute the ring
status information and RPS requests to all the ring nodes.
Changes in the ring status information and RPS requests can be
initiated automatically based on link status or caused by external commands."

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.
[Huub] can be fixed as suggested.

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.

[Huub] can be fixed as suggested.
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."
[Huub] can be fixed as suggested.
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.
[Huub] we will add a figure showing how a port carries LSPs and
ring tunnels.
(we will try to have the figure ready before the IESG telechat)

The figure will be based on the following:
Because the LSPs on an ingress port can egress at different egress
ports/nodes a port can carry multiple ring tunnels.
Because separate LPSs on a ingress port can egress on the same
egress port/node they are using the same ring tunnel.
Because an egress port can terminate ring tunnels from different
ingress ports/nodes a port can carry multiple ring tunnels.
Because a ring tunnel can carry several LSPs, an egress port can
carry several LSPs in the same ring tunnel.

---------

Best regards, Huub.


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

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to