Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10-rtgdir-early-malis-2015-09-25-00

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-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10

Reviewer: Andy Malis

Review Date: 24 September 2015

IETF LC End Date: 25 September 2015

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue and
some nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

This review is based on the file

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt

 .

This is probably one of the most reviewed drafts I have ever seen, going back
to when it was an individual draft and then through its various stages in (and
back to) the working group. Thanks to its many reviews and reviewers, the draft
is technically correct and generally easy to follow. Thus, there is very little
to add at this stage.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

On Sept. 17, Joel Halpern wrote the Gen-art Review for this draft.

I agree with his comment regarding the address stack, and his proposed sentence
to be added to section 3.2.

Nits:

The abbreviation AN for Access Node is defined slightly after its first use,
which is earlier in the same line in the document (line 197 in the .txt file).

On lines 303 and 363, the word "octets" is misspelled.

Cheers,

Andy

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:06 PM, The IESG

<

iesg-secretary at ietf.org

>

 wrote:

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG

(mpls) to consider the following document:

- 'Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping'

  <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits

final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

ietf at ietf.org

 mailing lists by 2015-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may be

sent to

iesg at ietf.org

 instead. In either case, please retain the

beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment

   scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and

   Traceroute", a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the

   available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to

   the initiator would be discarded resulting in false negatives or

   complete failure of operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute.  This

   document describes extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the

   replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a

   set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator.  This document

   updates RFC 4379.

The file can be obtained via

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/

IESG discussion can be tracked via

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:



https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1945/



https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/828/

_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

mpls at ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls