Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:48:16 -0400

Hi Folks,

I have a few last call comments/questions on this draft.
These are listed as they appear in the draft.

There has been some discussion as to whether the data plane section
of this document should be moved to a separate document if it
is like the one in the ldp vpls draft.

I would be in favor of a separate document if there are no
differences in the data plane between the 2 drafts.

1) Table of Contents seems to be missing.

2) Section 1.1, last sentence of the first paragraph 
discusses "defining various deployment scenarios".

Two paragraphs above, this is referred to as "deployment options"

Could this be called deployment options or deployment considerations?
(Deployment Scenarios implies (at least to me) a description of
existing network deployments with lots of pictures and 
Section 5 Deployment Scenarios is more accurately described
as Deployment Options or Deployment Considerations. 
 
3) Section 1.1, 3rd Paragraph, 

"The control plane described here (section 3) uses ..."

Please remove the word "here" so this could become

"The control plane described in section 3 uses ..."

4) Figure 1.

Could "A" be defined ?

5) Section 3.1  Autodiscovery

The term of Autodiscovery seems to be overused in this section.
Could the term "Discovery" apply to finding all PEs that participate
in a given VPLS, and AutoDiscovery be used to describe 
the mechanism whereby PEs are autodiscovered by means of some protocol.

I found it confusing to put say that configuration is a type of
autodiscovery.

6) Section 3.2.1, Setup and Teardown

Question  on the 5th paragraph, where it says "...then Y SHOULD withdraw
all its NLRIs for V."    Why is this SHOULD, and not MUST?

7) Section 3.2.1, Setup and Teardown

Question on the 6th paragraph, "...then X tears down its ends
of the pseudowires between X and Y."   If the answer to the
previous question is MUST then, maybe this could be restated
to say "...then X MUST tear down..." ?  If the answer to the
previous question remains SHOULD, then, maybe this could be
restated to say "...then X SHOULD tear down..." ?

8) Section 3.2.2  Signaling PE Capabilities

The 2nd paragraph which starts, "There is a new
Encaps Type for VPLS (TBD)."   Since this is a last call,
can the TBD be resolved?  Also, there was no mention
of this in the IANA Considerations Section so I just wanted
to verify that this was not something that should have gone
into the IANA Considerations Section?

9) Section 3.2.2, The Signaling PE Capabilities

The last paragraph does not state what the value of P is
when the PE is supposed to strip the outermost VLAN from the layer
2 customer fram on ingress and push a VLAN on egress.  Could
this be stated?

10) Section 5, Deployment Scenarios

As discussed above, could this be renamed to deployment options
or deployment considerations?

  thanks, 
    -Joan