Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:09:28 +0200

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-targeted-mldp-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130827
IETF LC End Date: 20130903
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - in general I don't like the style used in this document but it is still
  understable.

 - abstract page 1: it is not recommended to explicitly cite RFCs by number
  in the abstract (the idea is to make easier to update base specs, note
  in this particular case the reviewed document should be merged in the
  references during the update)

 - 1.2.1 page 4: an example of dubious wording (cf style comment):
   The particular method used to select an "upstream LSR" is determined
   by the Service Provider (SP).  The method to use is determined by
   provisioning; whichever method is used, must be known a priori to all
   the LSRs involved.

 - 7 page 9: please add the country (USA)

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: in the header I can see "IJsbrands Wijnands", in Authors' Addresses
and in the mLDP reference "IJsbrand Wijnands"?

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:30:27 -0400

> in general I don't like the style used in this document but it is still
> understable.

Well, thanks for your review anyway ;-)

> abstract page 1: it is not recommended to explicitly cite RFCs by number
> in the abstract (the idea is to make easier to update base specs,

Current text:

   As specified in RFC 6388, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be
   used to set up Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-
   Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths.  However, RFC 6388
   presupposes that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly
   connected.  The LDP base specification (RFC 5036) allows for the case
   where the two endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected;
   such a session is known as a "Targeted LDP" session.  This document
   provides the specification for using the LDP P2MP/MP2MP extensions
   over a Targeted LDP session.

Would it be better to replace it by:

   Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be used to set up
   Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) Label
   Switched Paths.  However, the specification for the Multipoint Extensions
   to LDP presupposes that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly
   connected.  The LDP base specification allows for the case where the two
   endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected; such a session is
   known as a "Targeted LDP" session.  This document provides the
   specification for using the LDP Multipoint Extensions over a Targeted LDP
   session.

> an example of dubious wording:

How about:

   The particular method used to select an "upstream LSR" is determined by
   the Service Provider (SP), and must be made known a priori (i.e., by
   provisioning) to all the LSRs involved.

Fixed the spelling error and added the country to the snail mail addresses.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:58:39 +0800

Francis: Thank you very much for your review.

Jari