[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-01.txt

"Lizhong Jin" <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 15:04 UTC

Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 23:04:32 +0800
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2014080822341929710226@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart125340167708_=----"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/47FTMApsUXflsEOmaQC0_HImTEU
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding <draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org>, rtg-dir <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-01.txt
Precedence: list

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-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-01 (mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards)
Reviewer: Lizhong Jin
Review Date: Aug. 8, 2014.
IETF LC End Date: Aug. 8, 2014.
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:
Before WG draft adoption, I also reviewed this draft as MPLS RT review. This draft solves a real problem, and it is easy to read and understand. I only have some minor concerns and some editorial issues.

Major Issues:
None.

Minor Issues:
Section 1
When an MP-LSP is being set up, the procedures of [RFC6826] and
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling] , known as "mLDP In-Band
Signaling", allow the Egress LSRs of the MP-LSP to encode the
identifier of an IP multicast tree in the "Opaque Value" field of the
mLDP FEC Element that identifies the MP-LSP.
[Lizhong] The reference [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling] should be moved to the next section, right? This section is talking about RFC6826.

Section 3.2
Please note that, as always, the structure of the Opaque
Value TLVs does not actually affect the operation of mLDP, but only
affects the interface between mLDP and IP multicast at the Ingress
LSR.
[Lizhong] the interface between mLDP and IP multicast at the egress LSR is also affected. So it is better to say "...at the Ingress and Egress LSR".

Section 3.2
Note that the Bidir TLVs do not have a "Source Address" sub-field,
and hence the notion of a wildcard source is not applicable to them.
[Lizhong] since Bidir TLV is out of the scope, then it is not necessary to have the above note.

Section 3.3
However, if an Ingress LSR supports
[RFC6826] and/or [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling], but
does not support this document, it has no choice but to treat any
such received FEC elements as invalid; the procedures specified in
[RFC6826] and [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling] do not work
when the Opaque values contain zeroes in the Source Address or Group
Address sub-fields.
[Lizhong] I went throught RFC6826 and RFC7246, there is no definition of "zeroes". Then the above statement will be treated as an update to RFC6826 and RFC7246. If that is true, then the draft header needs to indicate that update.

Section 5.
If PIM is not enabled for the identified group, the Ingress LSR
acts as if it had received a (*,G) IGMP/MLD report from a
downstream node, and the procedures as defined in [RFC4605] are
followed.
[Lizhong] It seems the dataplane processing is missing here. E.g., add something like, the ingress LSR should forward the specified multicast stream to the downstream node through the MP-LSP identified by the Opaque Value TLV. That is not described in RFC4605.

Nits:
Section 1.
s/using/use

Section 1 is a bit too long, and include both introduction and problem statement. It is suggested to separate two sections. But I will not object if you want to keep it.

Section 4.2
s/nessesary/necessary

Regards
Lizhong Jin

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-… Lizhong Jin
Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mp… Lizhong Jin
Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mp… Eric Rosen
Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mp… Eric Rosen
Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mp… Lizhong Jin