Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-27
Requested 2014-10-16
Authors IJsbrand Wijnands, Eric Rosen, Arkadiy Gulko, Uwe Joorde, Jeff Tantsura
Draft last updated 2014-10-31
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Ólafur Guðmundsson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Lizhong Jin (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn Davies
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02-genart-lc-davies-2014-10-31
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2014-10-31


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date:  2014-10-31
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-27
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -


Almost ready.  There are a couple of clarifications around how IPv4 and 

IPv6 trees can or cannot be merged on a single MP-LSP that would be 

advantageous.  Also the error handling in the parent RFCs

(6388, 6826) is a bit sketchy resulting in messy handling if an LSR that 

does not support the wildcard

encoding is accidentally sent the TLVs from this draft.  I am not sure 

if this can be cleaned up (and maybe there is no thought to be a problem 

- I am not sufficiently expert in LDP signalling).

PS Apologies for the late review - Overtaken by holidays.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

IPv4 and IPv6 Multicast: I think it would be useful to add a short 

discussion of the fact that there are both IPv4 and IPv6 multicast 

trees.  Presumably an MP-LSP can only carry one or the other at a time, 

but I am unclear about whether this is the case. Also a note in s3.1 

that it is either the IPv4 or IPv6 address fields that are relevant and 

they are all zeroes in either case would clarify the usage further.

RFC 5918 Typed Wildcard:  Is there anything special that has to be done 

if the Typed Wildcard is used?

s3.3:  Is it possible to specify the error behaviour more concretely 

(i.e., what might  happen) in case an unadapted Ingress LSR gets a 

wildcard TLV?  It appears that RFC 6826 is rather underspecified as 

regards error handling - but I am not an expert on this area - it 

appears that the MP-LSP would get set up but to no good purpose which 

seems inappropriate.  Could an error status not be returned?

Nits/editorial comments:

s2, Definition of 'in-band signalling': Should also allow for (S,*) - 

and possibly (*,*), I believe.

s3.4: s/PIM ASM/PIM-ASM/