Early Review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-02
review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-02-rtgdir-early-pignataro-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-pals-ms-pw-protection-02
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review Date: September 23, 2015
IETF LC End Date: ?
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This document is almost ready for publication, but has nits and minor comments
that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This document updates the S-PE protection mechanism for MPLS MS-PWs dynamically
set up with LDP, extending those also for Static MS-PW (where there is no LDP)
and making these new procedures applicable to MPLS-TP.

This is an extremely well written document — thank you very much. It is clear
and comprehensive.

Major Issues:
None.

Minor Issues:
Two potential issues for your consideration:

Clarification of scope. RFC 5659 (as well as RFC 6073, which is not referenced
here), concern themselves with MS-PWs for both MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs, including
hybrid cases with segments of different data plane encapsulations. RFC 6073
(normative to RFC 6478 and 6870) further includes the cases of static MS-PWs.

While this document is inclusive of MPLS and MPLS-TP PWs, L2TPv3 pseudowires
can use protection based on RFC 5641. It might be useful to explicitly clarify
in the Introduction if static segments of MS-PW that connect with L2TPv3
signaled (or LDP) can use RFC 5641 in the dynamic segment, but for static
L2TPv3 PWs this document does not provide a solution (although one exists for
dynamic using RFC 5641).

Also, a minor comment on Appendix A. The document says that those procedures
are “optional”. However, it would help to clarify if those are “OPTIONAL”
(using RFC 2119 language)

Nits:
Title: “S-PE Outage Protection for Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires”

I found the word “Outage” a bit odd in this title. Looking at all relevant
citations (e.g., RFCs 6718, 6870, 6478), they talk about “S-PE Protection” and
do not mention “outage” at all. Yes, outages are something to protect from, but
potentially not the only use of S-PE Protection. Net-net, I’d remove “Outage”
from the title — it is not mentioned in the document anywhere else anyway.

I hope these help,

— Carlos.

Attachment:

signature.asc

Description:

 Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail