Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05
review-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05-genart-lc-housley-2014-01-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-01-16 | |
| Requested | 2014-01-02 | |
| Authors | Dan Frost , Stewart Bryant , Matthew Bocci , Lou Berger | |
| I-D last updated | 2014-01-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Russ Housley
(diff)
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2014-01-03 |
review-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05-genart-lc-housley-2014-01-03-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2014-01-02 IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: Ready for publication. Question: Should this document be an update to the MPLS-TP Framework (RFC 5921)? I am not sure. RFC 5921 does make it clear that it covers only point- to-point transport paths. The answer may be further complicated by the fact that RFC 5921 is joint work with the ITU-T. Major Concerns: None. Minor Concerns: None. Other Comments: In the first sentence of Section 1, please define MPLS-TP as follows: OLD: The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile is the ... NEW: The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is ... Please add TE-LSP to the terms defined in Section 1.2. In Section 5.1, I cannot understand this sentence: > > Per [RFC6373], the definitions of P2MP, [RFC4875], and GMPLS > recovery, [RFC4872] and [RFC4873], do not explicitly cover their > interactions. > I think that the references are getting in the way. I think the message is: "the definitions of P2MP and GMPLS recovery do not explicitly cover their interactions." If I am correct, then some commas need to be removed. The phrase "MPLS Transport Profile" appears many places, and it would be easier if they were replaces with "MPLS-TP" for consistency.