Subject: [Mpls-review] MPLS-RT review of draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:14:14 -0400

You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv.

Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
(ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
the document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether the
document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to
be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).

Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and secretary,
and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent
privately to only the WG chairs.

Are you able to review this draft by July 11, 2012 (this is giving you an
extra week due to the July 4th holiday)?

Thanks, Ross
(as MPLS WG chair)

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:50:18 +0200

Hi Ross,

2012-06-20, Ross Callon:
> [...]

Yes, I think I can.
(I don't have the July 4th excuse, but I won't ask either for shortening 
the delay ;-)

-Thomas

---

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:57:03 +0000

Hi Ross,

I am OK with that time.

Best regards,
Mach

发件人: Ross Callon [mailto:[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年6月20日 22:14
收件人: Nischal Sheth; Mach Chen; [email-masked]
抄送: Loa Andersson; George Swallow; Ross Callon; Martin Vigoureux; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Sami Boutros (sboutros); Luca Martini; Nic Leymann
主题: MPLS-RT review of draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv

document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn’t have to

Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and secretary,
and CC’d to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent
privately to only the WG chairs.

Thanks, Ross
(as MPLS WG chair)

---

From: Nischal Sheth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:15:01 -0700

> extra week due to the July 4th holiday)?

Yes, works for me.

-Nischal

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:14:33 -0600

WG,

I read and reviewed the draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02.txt.

I have a few suggestions :
- The current editor should search and replace 3036 with 5036.

- In Section 4 I think we need to indicate that all future LDP 
applications MUST indicate the desired advertisement mode.
( instead of a RECOMMEND )

I am currently editing rfc4447bis, so I will include the suggested text 
in it.

The document is certainly useful and needed, but I find it a bit verbose 
to just say one simple thing: "the A-bit only applied to LDP 
applications defined in RFC5036"

I believe this document is ready to be adopted as a WG document , and 
progressed quickly , since it is very simple.

Luca

---

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:42:52 +0000

Hi,

I have read and reviewed draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02. 

Overall, I think this draft is useful and ready to be considered for WG adoption.

I also have some comments on the draft:

1. Section 4.1, 
"Any document specifying a new FEC SHOULD state the applicability
     of the negotiated label advertisement discipline for that FEC."
I agree with Luca, a "MUST" (instead of "SHOULD") should be more appropriate.

2. Section 5
It's not clear the "future work" is of this draft or the WG(I guess its later), especially for the first paragraph, it gave me the impression that this draft will define per-FEC/application capability negotiation in the future. And the second paragraph is a bit overlap with Section 4.1.  So, I'd suggest to remove this section. If want to keep it, you could just keep the first paragraph and clarify the new extension is out of scope. 

Best regards,
Mach

 

 
Thanks, Ross
(as MPLS WG chair)