Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04
review-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04-rtgdir-lc-takeda-2019-12-26-00

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-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: Dec 27th, 2019
IETF LC End Date: Not known
Intended Status: Standards Track

o Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

o Comments:
This document specifies data plane procedures for Detnet IP over Detnet MPLS,
using Detnet IP and Detnet MPLS specified in other documents.

This document is fairly straight-forward based on related documents (detnet-ip,
detnet-mpls, detnet-data-plane-framework, RFC8655).

o Major Issues:
None

o Minor Issues:
I am a bit confused how "aggregation" is applied in Detnet IP over Detnet MPLS.

In Section 3, it says, "an IP flow is mapped to one or more PWs and MPLS (TE)
LSPs."

By reading detnet-mpls, aggregation (aggregating individual flows and their
associated resource into a larger aggregate ) is achieved via LSP hierarchy.

Does this mean that in Detnet IP over Detnet MPLS context, LSP hierarchy is
mandatory for aggregation? Or is it possible to map multiple Detnet IP flows
into one PW as an aggregate?

I think it is better clarify this in the document.

Nits:
- It seems text in Section 5.1 references wrong sections. For example,
  - "the procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Section 6.1." (which does
  not exist). - "defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Section 5.4." (which does
  not exist). - "defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] Section 7.1." (which does not
  exist).

- It is good to have "PRF" and "PEF/POF" in Section 2.2 (Abbreviations).

Thanks,
Tomonori