Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
( Alex Zinin ) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
( Brian Carpenter ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comprehensibility comments from Gen-ART reviewer: Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-04.txt Review: John Loughney Date: 2 mars 2005 ... Additionally, I had a lot of trouble actually parsing much of the document, I am not going to site every single instance, but some examples are listed below. I think an editorial pass is needed to enhance the comprehensibility of the text. Minor comments 1) Way too much acronyms in the abstract ... 2) Took me several reads to be able to parse the following text: .... Because of the nature of the TLV construction the object is flexible and allows the future definition of: - further bit flags if further, distinct uses are discovered - arbitrary options and attributes parameters carried as individual TLVs. suggest: The new RSVP-TE message object is quite flexible, due to the use of the TLV format and allows: - future specification of bit flags - additional options and atttribute paramerters carried in TLV format. "if further, distinct uses are discovered" and "arbitrary options and attributes" sounds like an open invitation for folks to invent new things without good reason ... 3) This text was confusing: 4.2 Generic Processing Rules for Path Messages An LSR that does not support this object will pass it on unaltered because of the C-Num. suggest: 4.2 Generic Processing Rules for Path Messages An LSR that does not support this object is required to pass it on unaltered, as the C-Num indicates that the LSR should pass the object on transparently.
( Bill Fenner ) No Objection
( Sam Hartman ) No Objection
( Scott Hollenbeck ) No Objection
( Russ Housley ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Section 1.1 says: > > The RSVP-TE signaling protocol also forms the basis of a signaling > protocol for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) as described in [RFC3471] and > [RFC3473]. The extensions described in this document are intended to > be equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS. > I would like to see the title and abstract reflect this situation.