Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2020-09-10
Requested 2020-08-27
Authors Balazs Varga , János Farkas , Lou Berger , Andrew G. Malis , Stewart Bryant
Draft last updated 2020-09-10
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Harish Sitaraman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joerg Ott
State Completed
Review review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06-tsvart-lc-ott-2020-09-10
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-09-10
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

The document defines the transmission and reception behaviour as well as
the configuration information for encapsulating DetNet MPLS packets over UDP.
The draft provides an explicit applicability statement concerning carrying
non-congestion controlled traffic.

With the latter in mind, the document seems to be complete.
(Fragmentation and reassembly seem to be already covered with MPLS-over-UDP
in RFC7510 and RFC4023)

One quick question to the authors:
Section 5 provides the necessary information to be configured for flow mapping
and makes reference to IP source and destination addresses. Is the presence of
network (and port) address translation devices/functions covered elsewhere in
the many specs to ensure proper transmission at a sender and proper reverse
mapping at a receiver? It would be up to the control plane to determine the
appropriate addresses. Does this need explicit mentioning?