Subject: [mpls] [mpls-tp] WG LC comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-10

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:03:34 +0100

Hi, 

Here are some LC comments to the TP Framework draft:

Section 1.3:  Should add the Acronym "PST  Path Segment Tunnel"
Section 1.3.4:  End of statement #5:  s/permitted/supported/
Section 3.3:  3rd bullet - s/connectivity check/continuity check/ - but
in general I think that the sentence should be changed to "Proactive and
on-demand Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions to
monitor and diagnose the MPLS-TP network, as outlined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework]."
Similarly - 5th bullet could be appended with "as outlined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk]",  and 6th bullet could read "Network
management functions as outlined in [I-D.ietf.mpls-tp-nm-framework]"
Section 3.4.1:  The paragraph directly after Figure 5 is a
(word-for-word) repeat of the beginning of the paragraph two before the
figure!!
Appears different places in the document (e.g. 1.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.12) -
the Survivability Framework document specifies a Protection State
Coordination (PSC) mechanism, but this document keeps referring to it as
"Automatic Protection Switching (APS)", could we make a decision and be
consistent on the terminology that should be used?
Section 3.7: The OAM Framework defines MEP as Maintenance Entity Group
(MEG) End Point and MIP as MEG Intermediate Point.  Here again,
consistency across the documents would be helpful.
Also, in this section, the list of ME types should be coordinated with
the latest version of the OAM Framework.
Section 3.12: first sentence - s/requirements/architecture/

Best regards,
 
Yaacov Weingarten
Industry Environment, Packet Transport
Nokia Siemens Networks
Hod Hasharon, Israel 45241
Tel: +972-9-775 1827
Mob: +972-54-220 0977