The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

 

Thanks Loa,

 

Observation:

 

The use of the node-id flag is not clearly explained as a requirement to achieve the function that the draft states it aims to achieve. In section 4, you have...

 

  - case 1: the backup tunnel destination is the MP's node-id. Then a PLR
  can find the MP and suitable backup tunnel by simply comparing the
  backup tunnel's destination address with the node-id included in the
  RRO of the primary tunnel. 
  - case 2: the backup tunnel terminates at an address different than the
  MP's node-id. Then a node-id subobject MUST also be included in the RRO
  object of the backup tunnel. A PLR can find the MP and suitable backup
  tunnel by simply comparing the node-ids present in the RRO objects of
  both the primary and backup tunnels.

 

The requirement for these cases is that the node-id is inserted in the RRO so that the tail-ends of the available backup tunnels can be compared against the RRO to determine an MP and a suitable backup tunnel. This function does not require that the node-ids be distinguishable from interface-ids within the RRO (although that distinction might marginally speed up the comparison).

 

Thus the applicability of the node-id flag does not extend to the problem stated.

 

This does not detract from

- the need to include node-ids in the RRO

- the wider benefit of being able to distinguish node-ids from interface-ids.

 

 

Major point:

 

I do not believe it is helpful to copy text from RFC 3209 into section 3. Further, I consider it unhelpful to copy in text that is not correctly cited. Note that RFC 3209 defines only 2 RRO flags (Local protection available, and Local protection in use). The other three flags are defined in drafts not RFCs.

I would suggest that you simply define your new flag value. if you want to justify the value, simply say that other documents define other flag settings.

 

Minor points:

 

Abstract must not contain citations.

Intellectual property section is not the standard wording.

Copyright section is missing.

Security section should reference RFC 3209, not RFC 2205.

References need to be split into Normative and Informational.

 

 

 

Nits:

 

Date stamps are inconsistent.

References are way out of date.

Page 5 para 1 "trafficengineering"

 

 

 

Thanks,

Adrian

----- Original Message -----

From: "Loa Andersson" <NtscpUsrLoa@netscape.net>

To: "MPLS wg" <mpls@UU.NET>

Cc: "Alex Zinin" <zinin@psg.com>; "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:21 PM

Subject: WG last call on draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-01.txt

> WG-group,
> 
> this is to initiate a two week wg last 
call on
> 
> <draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-01.txt>
> 
> Please send comments to the mailing list.
> 
> The wg last 
call ends on January 25th 12PM EST.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Loa Andersson
> 
> mobile +46 739 81 
21 64
> 
> 
> 
>