Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-04-08
Requested 2014-03-28
Authors Pranjal Dutta, Florin Balus, Olen Stokes, Don Fedyk, Geraldine Calvginac
Draft last updated 2014-05-03
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -12 by Susan Hares (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Review review-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11-opsdir-lc-hares-2014-05-03
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 13)
Review result Serious Issues
Review completed: 2014-05-03


Florin, Dutta, Olen and Geraldine:


Document ready for publication: Not yet – Technical  and editorial issues need to be addressed 


Technical mechanism:  Good mechanism and needed for internet.  Most technical issues are due to write-up, but without a clear mechanism interoperability issues will probably occur. 





Consider technical issue 1 



Fix obvious editorial errors – (section references, MS-PW, ordering of processing) 



Fix problems 2-4 in the text’s clarity and accurate 



Consider strongly rewording document – if you can do this within the WG 

(no further comment is made on this point) 


Technical errors: 




Basic mechanism is good 



N=1 Clear mine, N=0 Clear other than mine



C= Context – PBB-VPLS I-context (1), H-VPLS/BMACS = 0




Mechanism to consider for operational issue  


         Problem 1: Negotiation is outside your context  (to be considered) 


       Negotiation being outside your context does not mean you cannot

       flag that a flush has been part of a negotiated  Flush entity. 


      Have all users of MAC flush set a flag bit if the setting is negotiated.

      This may help you debugging of this feature distribution. 


      Problem 2 (Technical/Editorial) – Clarity of mechanisms in text 


       Due to expert level of the authors, I assume in this write-up that the 

       lack of clarity is a documentation issue. 


       Sections 5.1.2 – 5.1.4 do not have a clear step by step processing. 

       It is not “what” you do that is the problem, but the order of the processing 

      That is not clearly specified.  I cannot tell if there is an ordering of the process.

       An ordered list (1-n) is useful if it is ordered.  A clearly delineated set of steps.

       Your references to the operations section should be 6 (5.1.2, 5.1.3)  


        I am not suggesting a specific ordering or language just a clean-up.

        Why?  Because I know Florin to be an excellent author.  I suspect

       that this text is the result of editorial hacks from the WG – but 

       the result I cannot tell how to process each section. 


       Editorial nit: MS-PW – is not defined (or I missed it). 


       Sections 5.2.1 – I could not follow the step by step processing of the 

       Packet until I made notes on the side. 


     Problem 3:  Technical/Editorial: I cannot tell the fallback case – must fix 


      Because sections 5.1.2-5.1.4 and 5.2.1 are not clearly written,

      I cannot tell what the fall-back mechanism is if one side negotiates

      And expects this option, and the other side does not. 


       Operational considerations try to address this, but the clarity of the

       Text fails. 


     Problem 4:  IANA section – must fix 


    I do not believe this section provides the details required by IANA.

    Please have your shepherd check do a pre-check with IANA – it will save you time. 


Next steps: 



Consider problem 1 



Fix problems 2-4 and section errors 


OPS-DIR reviewer comment:  I’m glad to help you form text or provide text.  Out of respect for the authors, I have only pointed the way to allow the authors the freedom to revise the text to address the issues. 


Sue Hares 

shares at