Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-04-08
Requested 2014-03-28
Authors Pranjal Dutta , Florin Balus , Olen Stokes , Don Fedyk , Geraldine Calvginac
Draft last updated 2014-05-03
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -12 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Review review-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11-opsdir-lc-hares-2014-05-03
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Serious Issues
Completed 2014-05-03
Florin, Dutta, Olen and Geraldine:

Document ready for publication: Not yet – Technical  and editorial issues need
to be addressed

Technical mechanism:  Good mechanism and needed for internet.  Most technical
issues are due to write-up, but without a clear mechanism interoperability
issues will probably occur.



Consider technical issue 1


Fix obvious editorial errors – (section references, MS-PW, ordering of


Fix problems 2-4 in the text’s clarity and accurate


Consider strongly rewording document – if you can do this within the WG

(no further comment is made on this point)

Technical errors:


Basic mechanism is good


N=1 Clear mine, N=0 Clear other than mine


C= Context – PBB-VPLS I-context (1), H-VPLS/BMACS = 0


Mechanism to consider for operational issue

         Problem 1: Negotiation is outside your context  (to be considered)

       Negotiation being outside your context does not mean you cannot

       flag that a flush has been part of a negotiated  Flush entity.

      Have all users of MAC flush set a flag bit if the setting is negotiated.

      This may help you debugging of this feature distribution.

      Problem 2 (Technical/Editorial) – Clarity of mechanisms in text

       Due to expert level of the authors, I assume in this write-up that the

       lack of clarity is a documentation issue.

       Sections 5.1.2 – 5.1.4 do not have a clear step by step processing.

       It is not “what” you do that is the problem, but the order of the

      That is not clearly specified.  I cannot tell if there is an ordering of
      the process.

       An ordered list (1-n) is useful if it is ordered.  A clearly delineated
       set of steps.

       Your references to the operations section should be 6 (5.1.2, 5.1.3)

        I am not suggesting a specific ordering or language just a clean-up.

        Why?  Because I know Florin to be an excellent author.  I suspect

       that this text is the result of editorial hacks from the WG – but

       the result I cannot tell how to process each section.

       Editorial nit: MS-PW – is not defined (or I missed it).

       Sections 5.2.1 – I could not follow the step by step processing of the

       Packet until I made notes on the side.

     Problem 3:  Technical/Editorial: I cannot tell the fallback case – must fix

      Because sections 5.1.2-5.1.4 and 5.2.1 are not clearly written,

      I cannot tell what the fall-back mechanism is if one side negotiates

      And expects this option, and the other side does not.

       Operational considerations try to address this, but the clarity of the

       Text fails.

     Problem 4:  IANA section – must fix

    I do not believe this section provides the details required by IANA.

    Please have your shepherd check do a pre-check with IANA – it will save you

Next steps:


Consider problem 1


Fix problems 2-4 and section errors

OPS-DIR reviewer comment:  I’m glad to help you form text or provide text.  Out
of respect for the authors, I have only pointed the way to allow the authors
the freedom to revise the text to address the issues.

Sue Hares

shares at