Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-tsaad-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt

From: Sriganesh Kini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:10:40 +0000

Hello,

Some review comments are below. Overall, the draft is addressing a
useful-problem but is not coherent. I think the problem statement has to
be clearly defined and terminology fixed before the draft proceeds to WG
acceptance call.

1. Abstract should state that the specific limitation being addressed is
one of tree-optimization as opposed to the individual sub-LSP
re-optimization that is already defined.

2. The "egress border" node used in Pg-3 bullet-1 should be defined. I am
assuming you intended to say mid-point LSR of RFC 4736 ?

3. Pg-3 last para. RFC 4736 states that reoptimization is for a preferable
path i.e. shorter path. This should be re-defined for a P2MP LSP so that
the notion of preferable is clear. This is critical to define the problem
statement.

4. Pg-4 bullet-1.  What is the 'query' being referred to here? Is it path
re-evaluation request ?

5. Pg-4 sec 1. A figure to illustrate the problems would be very useful.

6. Pg-5 section-3 last para. "...re-evaluating loosely expanded paths of
all S2L sub-LSP(s)...". Shouldn't the PathErr be sent even if a single S2L
sub-LSP can be re-optimized. Why should 'all' be re-evaluated ?

7. Do the procedures in this draft guarantee 'global optimization' ?

Thanks
Sri

On 4/22/14 6:45 AM, "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>All,
>
>I was to conservative sending this out, authors, co-chairs and
>wg secretary should have been copied.
>
>/Loa
>
>On 2014-04-22 14:51, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Curtis, Xiaohu, Sri, Thomas,
>>
>> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
>> draft-tsaad-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt.
>>
>> Note to authors: You have been CC¹d on this email so that you can know
>> that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
>> document.
>>
>> 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 doesn¹t
>> 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 CC¹d 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 May 7, 2014?
>>
>> Thanks, Loa
>> (as MPLS WG chair)
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
>Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
>Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64