[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PWE3] Comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-01
Dear Authors and All,
perhaps my comments will repeat what was already noted by others.
- Section 1.2, p.4:
- third paragraph from the top discusses PW receive defects from perspective of the PE1. I think that it is PE1 that should be mentioned in "... or PE2's inability to receive traffic on its local AC"
- second paragraph from the bottom discusses PW transmit defects from PE1 perspective. I think that in "... or PE2's inability to transmit traffic on its local AC" should be PE1, not PE2
- Would "Unavailability of a PSN path in the PW domain to PE2" be reflected only as PW Receive Defect but not as PW Transmit Defect? I'd think that both exist but, as stated in the document, the Receive Defect takes precedence over the Transmit Defect.
- Section 3.2, last paragraph. would suggest it reworded like "In case when a PW has been administratively disabled or loss of a Targeted LDP session to the peer detected, the PE must send Label Withdrawal message instead of PW Status Notification."
- Section 3.3. I would suggest to use more clear IETF forms of "MUST", "SHOULD" to outline which defect signaling mechanism is used for particular CV type. And I think that, per draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07, VCCV CV types 0x10 and 0x20 will relate to use of PW Status as 0x04 and 0x08 respectively.
- Section 5.1, first and second paragraphs. Are terms PW Receive Defect and PW Forward Defect identical and been used in the document interchangeably? (and AC Receive/AC Forward used in Section 5.6 in the same manner)
- Section 5.2, p.10, first paragraph. Reference to VCCV CV type 0x20 (non-IP encapsulation of BFD for defect detection and AC/PW fault status signaling) can be added.
- Section 5.6, p.11, second paragraph; Section 5.7. p.12 Same as for Section 5.2 - consider adding reference to VCCV CV type 0x20
Regards,
Greg