Subject: [mpls] LC comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 18:05:10 -0700

Dear Authors and All,
please find my LC comments to the document below (hope I'm not too late).

   - section 3.2 I think that there are mandatory TLVs for LI-LB and
   optional. Mandatory TLV for LI might be Source MEP-ID, Destination MEP-ID,
   while for LB Source MEP-ID and MIP-ID. Optional, e.g. Authentication TLV.
   - section 3.3.5 describes Return Code in Return TLV for LSP-ping option
   of LI-LB signaling. For in-band option Return Code has different values and
   values listed in this section are for field Cause Code. I think it would be
   beneficial to have some uniformity across LI-LB signalling options and in
   Return TLV have both Return Code and Cause Code fields with values identical
   for in-band and LSP-Ping options.
   - section 3.3.6 defines Authentication TLV for LSP-Ping option.
   Authentication of LB request but in-band option doesn't have provision to
   indicate that Authentication is in use. I propose to allocate MSB of
   Reserved field as Authentication flag.
   - section 6.3 mentions that Authentication may be used both in Lock
   request and Lock response. I think that if Authentication was present in
   Lock request and accepted by remote MEP, then Lock response must have
   Authentication. Similar is applicable to use of Authentication in Unlock
   request/response, and Setting/Removing LB .
   - section 6.5.b I think that there's no guarantee that sender of LI
   request will not generate false positive after remote MEP locks the LSP.
   Perhaps, if proactive OAM is enabled, the remote MEP should send LI reply
   but it might stop sending OAM messages after 3*TxPeriod interval.

Regards,
Greg