Early Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-14
review-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-14-rtgdir-early-lee-2015-01-26-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15.txt
Reviewer: Young Lee
Review Date: 19 January, 2015
IETF LC End Date: not sure
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered
prior to publication.

Comments:

This document specifies the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP OAM functions
carried by the GMPLS RSVP-TE protocols based on the OAM Configuration Framework
for GMPLS RSVP-TE. The document is in good shape but there are a few points
that should be clarified to improve the readability.

Major Issues:

None

Minor Issues:

None

Nits:

1) In Abstract and other parts, should 'pro-active' be replaced with
'proactive'? Perhaps, there may be a reason for the hyphen, but I was not sure.

2) In Introduction, I would suggest:

OLD: The use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
   functions is defined in a technology agnostic way in [RFC7260].
NEW: [RFC7260] defines The use of GMPLS RSVP-TE for the configuration of OAM
   functions is defined in a technology agnostic way.

3) In Introduction (the second paragraph), I am not sure if you need, 'the
Transport Profile of MPLS' after MPLS-TP.

4) In Introduction (the fourth paragraph), is there any reference for the last
sentence, "Additionally, there is a number of Fault Management Signals that can
be configured."? Also suggest:

OLD: Additionally
New: Additionally,

5) In Section 3.1 (the second paragraph): This sub-TLV as has to be examined...
I would suggest replacing 'has to be' to either MUST or SHOULD.

6) In Section 3.2: - "BFD Configuration sub-TLV", which MUST be included if the
CC
      and/or the CV OAM Function flag is set. It was not clear to me where the
      CC and/or CV OAM Function Flag is set. Reference would be good. I presume
      it is the OAM Configuration TLV in [RFC7260].

7) I have similar comments as 6) throughout this section when you refer to 'N'
flag, 'I' flag, etc.

8) In Section 3.2:

 OLD: - MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e. have no Value.
      Then its Length MUST be 8.  Then all OAM functions that have their
      corresponding flags set in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST
      be assigned their default values or left disabled.

 NEW: - If MPLS OAM Configuration sub-TLV MAY be empty, i.e. have no Value,
      then its Length MUST be 8 and all OAM functions that have their
      corresponding flags set in the "OAM Function Flags sub-TLV" MUST
      be assigned their default values or left disabled.

 OLD: - sub-TLV that doesn't have corresponding flag set MUST be
      silently ignored;

 NEW: - Sub-TLV.... (Capitalize)

 OLD: - if multiple copies of a sub-TLV are present, then only the first
      sub-TLV MUST be used and the remaining sub-TLVs MUST be silently
      ignored.

 NEW: - If multiple.... (Capitalize)

9) Section 3.2.1, it would be easier to trace if you would reference for the
first sentence, similar to comment 4).

Thanks,
Young