Skip to main content

Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Node Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-08

Yes

(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)

Recuse

(Alia Atlas)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-09-14 for -05) Unknown
The shepherd writup says that there has been no explicit discussion of the two IPR disclosures. It's probably too late to worry about that for this draft, and both disclosures have the fairly common "we won't assert if you don't" terms. But I think we should encourage working groups to have more explicit discussion for IPR disclosures.

-- 2.3, last paragraph: "Along with the PLR MP Status a MP FEC TLV MUST be included"
Does that mean that both MUST be included, or if the first is included, the second MUST also be?

-- 4.1.3, last paragraph:
Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it doesn't justify a MUST?

-- 6:
It would be nice to show your work a bit more in the security considerations. This draft adds new protocol elements and procedures. If the working group has determined that those new bits add no new security concerns, it would be good to say why.

Editorial and Nits:

A (probably first) paragraph in the intro that defined exactly what the draft means by "protection" would be helpful. (The existing first paragraph talks about how you provide protection, but one must infer what this protects _against_.

-- 1, 2nd paragraph: Lots of the terms here could use (informative) citations.

-- 2.1, first paragraph: Consider s/"we are describing"/"we describe"
-- 2.1, last paragraph, 2nd to last sentence, "See section 5":
 unbalanced parentheses.

-- 2.2, 1st paragraph:
s/"we are describing"/"we describe"

-- 2.2, last paragraph: 
"protection mechanism don’t" -- Noun/verb disagreement (singular/plural)
s/ help restoring/help restore

-- 2.3, 2nd to last paragraph:
I suggest the “A node N” phrase be moved to the first mention of N in this paragraph.

"Removing a PLR address is likely due to a link failure, see the procedures as documented in Section 4.1. ":
Comma splice. Consider a semicolon.

"MUST encode PLR Status Value Element": Missing article.

-- 3, 2nd paragraph:
"Ln that was assigned to N via the normal mLDP procedures, and Label Lpx that was assigned for PLR (LSR1) for the purpose of node protecting MP LSP via node N."
I can’t parse this sentence. (Incomplete sentence?)

-- 3, 3rd paragraph: "For this reason, the FEC Label Mapping (FEC <R,X> : Lpx) sent by the MPT over the tLDP session to the PLR MUST include a Status TLV with
   MP Status including a new LDP MP status Value Element called the "Protected Node Status Value Element"."
Convoluted sentence. Consider breaking into multiple, simpler sentences.

-- 5, 1st sentence:
s/we are organizing/we organize/
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-09-14 for -05) Unknown
How long has this document been sitting around?  The shepherd writeup says "Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD".
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2015-09-16 for -07) Unknown
Thanks for adding the new security consideration text.

If you change again please consider this tweak:

s/(a PLR or a MPT)/(e.g., a PLR or a MPT)/
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse (for -05) Unknown