Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:04:50 -0000

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-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel
M. Halpern
Sent: October 18, 2013 10:31 AM
To: A. Jean Mahoney
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 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-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls