Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10-rtgdir-early-malis-2015-09-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-09-25 | |
| Requested | 2015-09-14 | |
| Authors | Luo Jian, Lizhong Jin, Thomas Nadeau, George Swallow | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-09-25 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Joel Halpern
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Joel Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Sean Turner (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Andrew Malis (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Andrew Malis |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10-rtgdir-early-malis-2015-09-25 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 10 (document currently at 11) | |
| Review result | Has Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2015-09-25 |
Review
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10-rtgdir-early-malis-2015-09-25
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-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10 Reviewer: Andy Malis Review Date: 24 September 2015 IETF LC End Date: 25 September 2015 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue and some nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This review is based on the file https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt . This is probably one of the most reviewed drafts I have ever seen, going back to when it was an individual draft and then through its various stages in (and back to) the working group. Thanks to its many reviews and reviewers, the draft is technically correct and generally easy to follow. Thus, there is very little to add at this stage. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: On Sept. 17, Joel Halpern wrote the Gen-art Review for this draft. I agree with his comment regarding the address stack, and his proposed sentence to be added to section 3.2. Nits: The abbreviation AN for Access Node is defined slightly after its first use, which is earlier in the same line in the document (line 197 in the .txt file). On lines 303 and 363, the word "octets" is misspelled. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:06 PM, The IESG < iesg-secretary at ietf.org > wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping' <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute", a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded resulting in false negatives or complete failure of operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute. This document describes extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator. This document updates RFC 4379. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1945/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/828/ _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls