Subject: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:04:03 +0000

Hi authors,

Thanks for this document showing how the generic MPLS loss and delay 
measurement mechanisms can be applied to MPLS-TP.

Can I suggest some modifications?

Cheers,
Adrian

---
Abstract. 

A couple of points:
Firstly, I think the Abstract is a bit terse and could usefully set the
context of MPLS-TP.
Second, the note to the RFC Editor is intended to refer to the text that
states that the document is intended to have IETF consensus.
Third, it would be good to add a note about XXXX.

Suggestion...

Abstract

   Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and
   accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput
   in MPLS networks are defined in RFC XXXX. 

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol
   functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet-
   switched transport networks. 

   This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay,
   and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the
   specific requirements of MPLS-TP.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
   (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities
   of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.

   This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF
   Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF
   Last Call.

   [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and
   insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published
   RFC has IETF consensus.]

   [RFC Editor, please replace XXXX with the RFC number assigned to
    draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay.]

---

You need to update [I-D.frost-mpls-loss-delay] to
[I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]

---

Section 3

The T flag is not listed in the list of defaultable parameters, but a 
default is supplied.

This is easy to fix, but it made me wonder whether there is any value
in sections 2 and 3 4 each providing two lists (or the defaultable
parameters and the default values). Surely one list would suffice.

---

From: Dan Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:38:46 +0000

Hi Adrian,

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:04:03PM +0000, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> [...]

Thanks for the review and text!  Version -01 addresses your comments.
We may consolidate the parameter lists in a future version.

Cheers,

-d