Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02
review-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02-rtgdir-early-bhatia-2017-02-02-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 02 (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-03-06 | |
Requested | 2017-01-22 | |
Requested by | Loa Andersson | |
Authors | Stewart Bryant , Carlos Pignataro , Mach Chen , Zhenbin Li , Greg Mirsky | |
I-D last updated | 2017-02-02 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -02
by Manav Bhatia
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Manav Bhatia (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Daniel Fox Franke (diff) |
|
Comments |
Document is currently in wglc, which ends Feb 6, if a reviewer needs a few extra days that is fine, but the wg chairs would need to know. PS - I sent a mail also |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Manav Bhatia |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2017-02-02 |
review-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02-rtgdir-early-bhatia-2017-02-02-00
Dear Authors, I have been asked to do Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02 Summary: Its an informational draft that discusses “desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification”. I am not sure what this means — is this alluding to the capabilities on the routers, or some protocol? I think the authors meant to discuss the aspects that must be considered when developing a solution for MPLS flow identification. However, it takes quite a bit of reading to get there. I found the document quite hard to parse initially. After a couple of passes, it became somewhat better and I could understand the points that the authors were trying to make. I have no concerns on the technical content. Major Comments: Please work on the readability aspects of the draft. Minor Comments: 1. Section 3 - I would resist the urge to make a sweeping statement that packets dont get dropped in “modern networks” unless the network is oversubscribed. I work for a large vendor and I see packets dropping all the time. 2. Section 3 - What is a counter error? 3. Section 3 - “Thus where accuracy better than the data link loss performance of a modern optical network is required, it may be economically advantageous ..”. I had a very hard time trying to parse this. 4. Section 4 - “Also, for injected test packets, these may not be co-routed with the data traffic due to ECMP”. Also include LAG and MC-LAG. Additionally the data path for the test traffic could be different from the regular IP traffic. 5. Section 5 - “Such fine grained resolution may be possible by deep packet inspection, .. “. How can you do deep packet inspection at the LSR. How will you know the label stack size in the packet? I am not sure if the LSR needs to deep inspect these packets? But based on text in Sec 8, LSRs appear to be processing these packets. Cheers, Manav