Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-08-07
Requested 2014-07-30
Authors Himanshu Shah, Eric Rosen, Fran├žois Le Faucheur, Giles Heron
Draft last updated 2014-09-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Dacheng Zhang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Warren Kumari 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-09-05
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 16)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2014-09-05


Be ye not afraid.

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14
Reviewer: Warren Kumari

Summary: Looks good, with nits.

Note: The document states: "At this point, no further action is
planned to update this document and is published simply as a historic
record of the ideas."

AFAICT, this means that many of the OpsDir review checklist things do
no apply...


O: This became non-issue
P: This became a non-issue

2.0, Number 5
O: Following rules are observed when processing ARP packets,
P: The following rules [...]

2.0, Number 8, first bullet
O: In VPLS, MAC entries are placed in the FIB
P: Spell out FIB; first use

2.1 Terminology section, definitions don't have consistent indentation
(some are hanging indent, some no indent, etc.)

O: It is important to note that the frames
   sent to the control plane is applied stricter rate limiting
criteria to avoid overwhelming the control plane under adverse
   such as Denial Of Service attack.
P: It is important to note that stricter rate-limiting criteria is
applied to frames sent to the control plane, in order to avoid
overwhelming it under adverse conditions such as a Denial of Service


O: Also, a caution
   must be used such that only link local multicasts and broadcast IP
  packets are sent to control plane.
P: Also, caution must be used so that only link local [...]

O: is sent to the control plane for the CE discovery purposes.
P: is sent to the control plane for CE discovery purposes.

O: which results into a copy
P: which results in a copy

O: The multicast RA and RS Ethernet frames are replicated to using the
Send Multicast Replication Tree as described in section 6.3.
P: -- "replicated to using" is awkward, and I'm not sure what is meant here.

O: An IP frame received over a unicast pseudowire is prepended with a
   MAC header before transmitting it on the appropriate ACs)
P: -- No opening parentheses; delete the ) after ACs

O: Note however that some
P: Note, however, that some

O: The selection of appropriate multiplexing/demultiplexing scheme is
the subject of future study.
P: Either "an appropriate" [...] or change "scheme" to "schemes"

O: In nutshell,
P: In a nutshell,

O: In addition, VMs tendancy
P: In addition, VM's tendency

O: The IPLS solution facilitates VM mobility by way of PE closest to
   the new location signaling the MAC address to all remote peers.
P: [...] facilitates VM mobility by the PE closest to [...]

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.