Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04
review-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-10-12-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-10-13 | |
Requested | 2015-09-28 | |
Authors | Ron Bonica , Ina Minei , Michael Conn , Dante Pacella , Luis Tomotaki | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-12 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Leif Johansson (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Bert Wijnen (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -04 by John Drake (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Bert Wijnen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2015-10-12 |
review-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04-opsdir-lc-wijnen-2015-10-12-00
Hi, I did OPS-DIR review fordraft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05 Summary document is in good shape and ready for publication. However, when I read (in the abstract and also in the text itself): When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes. And I then see that this document describes an extra protocol (self-ping) in order to correct that problem, then I really wonder why one would not change: Referring to any LSR, RFC 3209 says, ""The node SHOULD be prepared to forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the RESV message". However, RFC 3209 does not strictly require this behavior. Why not make the SHOULD in RFC3209 a MUST ?? Does the additional self-ping not add a similar delay as that what is avoided with a SHOULD?? Bert