The MPLS WG Archive

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

Ben,

How nice to have such a detailed review so early in the process. Thanks!

Comments bellow.

Look out for these fixes in the next revision.

Cheers,
Adrian

> Abstract - dataplane => data plane

Ack

> The abstract states "may not only affect the fundamental of an MPLS
> network, but also because they MAY impact service level specification
> commitments for customers of their network." This sentence doesn't make
> sense - may not only affect the fundamental <what?> of an MPLS network.

s/fundamental/fundamentals/

> Also I'm not sure why the second MAY is capitalised.

You are right. We shouldn't use RFC 2119 language in the abstract.

> In the introduction the document refers to "requirements for user and
> data plane operations and management", however the term "user plane" is
> never used in the rest of the document.  So I would suggest removing the
> term user plane from the introduction, unless the intention is to
> emphasise that user plane == data plane in which case I think this
> intention needs to be made more explicit.

Good point. Deleted user plane from Intro and Abstract.

> The introduction states "These latter are described in [MPLS-OAM] and
> are not repeated in this document."  Guess this should be "These latter
> requirements"

Ack

> Section 4 states "The general requirements described in this section are
> closely similar to those described for point-to-point MPLS in
> [MPLS-OAM]." closely similar makes no sense to me - would suggest either
> "closely related" or just "similar".

Hah! I bet it makes some sense to you! One of the joys of being human is
that we can extract sense from our parsing of natural language ;-)

Changed to "similar".

> Section 4 states "In general, it should be noted that P2MP LSPs
> introduce a scalability issue that is not present in point-to-point
> MPLS."  Is this scalability issue a general one or a OAM scaling issue?
> If the latter the I think you should make this explicit in the sentence
> e.g. "In general, it should be noted that P2MP LSPs introduce a
> scalability issue with respect to OAM that is not present in
> point-to-point MPLS."

Well, both OAM and other areas. Basically, P2MP LSPs necessarily require
more of everything because they have more egresses. But, given the scope
of the I-D, your change is correct.

> Section 4.1 states "The ability to detect defects in a broken Label
> Switch Path (LSP) SHOULD not require manual hop-by-hop
> troubleshooting of each LSR used to switch traffic for that P2MP
> LSP."  I don't like "detect defects in a broken LSP" or "for that
> P2MP LSP" as the first part of sentence doesn't mention a P2MP
> LSP.  Would suggest either:
>
> "The ability to detect defects in a P2MP Label Switch Path (LSP)
> SHOULD not require manual hop-by-hop troubleshooting of each
> LSR used to switch traffic for that P2MP LSP.",
> or
> "The ability to detect defects in a Label Switch Path (LSP)
> SHOULD not require manual hop-by-hop troubleshooting of
> each LSR used to switch traffic for a P2MP LSP."

Good point.
Changed to the following as LSP is already defined.
   The ability to detect defects in a P2MP LSP SHOULD not
   require manual hop-by-hop troubleshooting of each
   LSR used to switch traffic for that LSP.

> Section 4.1 states "As the number of leaves of the P2MP LSP
> increases so it becomes potentially more expensive to inspect the
> LSP to detect defects."  I don't like this sentence and would suggest
> "As the number of leaves of a P2MP LSP increases it potentially
> becomes more expensive to inspect the LSP to detect defects."

You don't like my split infinitives?

Good suggestion.

> In section 4.9 remove the superfluous "These" from the end of the first
> paragraph.

Ack

> Section 4.9, second paragraph - facillitate => facilitate

Ack

> Section 4.11, first paragraph - matricies => matrices

Ack

> Section 4.11, second paragraph - becasue => because

Ack

> In section 4.11, second paragraph remove the superfluous "The" at the
> beginning of the last sentence.

Ack

> Section 5, first paragraph - conseuqences => consequences

Ack

> Section 5, second paragraph sates "As with previous OAM function
> described in [MPLS-OAM]," which doesn't read very well to me, suggest
> "As with the OAM functions described in [MPLS-OAM]"

Ack

> Section 5, second paragraph - becuase => because

Ack


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls