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

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

Deborah Brungard Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-14 for -05)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-16 for -07)
No email
send info
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)/

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-14 for -05)
No email
send info
How long has this document been sitting around?  The shepherd writeup says "Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD".

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alia Atlas) Recuse