Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
review-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-10-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-10-19
Requested 2015-10-09
Draft last updated 2015-10-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by He Jia (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-10-19
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-10-19

Review
review-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-10-19






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.




 




This draft provides a solution for an interesting problem. I have a few comments though:




 




-

       


Even though the description in later sections makes it clear of what is S-PE and T-PE, it would be helpful to add a formal definition for S-PE, T-PE.





 




-

       


Section 3 (S-PE Operations) describes how S-PE advertise the multi-segment “Stand-by” status to the “single segment” T-PE node. I don’t quite understand why Single-Homed segment  needs to care about the "standby" status of the multi-segment
 side?  The "Multi-segments" should care about the status of the "single segment" because if the single segment fails the CEs are disconnected, whereas if the “Standby” segment fail, there shouldn’t be any impact to the single segment.





 




 




Cheers,





 




Linda Dunbar