The MPLS WG Archive

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com>]

Hi Ben

Thanks a lot for these suggestions.
They will be incorporated in the next revision.

Best Regards,

JL

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com 
> [mailto:benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 23 février 2006 16:29
> À : mpls@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [mpls] TR: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-03.txt 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> After reading draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-03 I have the 
> following editorial comments/suggestions:
> 
> Section 3.1, Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,7 - put a blank line after 
> each paragraph.
> 
> Section 3.1, Paragraph 6 - "A P2MP LSPs is an LSP" => "A P2MP 
> LSP is an LSP"
> 
> Section 3.1, Paragraph 8 - "without the need of traffic 
> engineering" => "without the need for traffic engineering"
> 
> Section 3.2, Paragraph 1 - you use egress LSR but everywhere 
> else in the document you use Egress LSR.
> 
> Section 3.2, Paragraph 5 - "This may allow reducing the 
> amount of LDP state to be maintained by a LSR" suggest 
> changing this to "This may allow a reduction in the amount of 
> LDP state that must be maintained by a LSR"
> 
> Section 5.2, Paragraph 2 - "Such P2MP FEC MUST be 
> distinguished clearly from the exiting P2P FEC." I think you 
> mean 'existing' not 'exiting'.
> 
> Section 5.8, Paragraph 2 - "Given that P2MP LDP routing must 
> rely on the RIB, the achievement of the following 
> requirements also implies the underlying routing protocols 
> (IGP, etc.)."  I think what you're trying to say is something 
> like "Given that P2MP LDP routing must rely on the RIB, the 
> achievement of the following requirements also implies the 
> underlying routing protocols (IGP, etc.) must meet these 
> requirements."
> 
> Section 5.8.1, Paragraph 2 - "The rerouting time SHOULD be as 
> much as possible minimized so as to reduce traffic 
> disruption." => "The rerouting time SHOULD be minimized as 
> much as possible so as to reduce traffic disruption." 
> 
> Section 5.8.2 - "Traffic disruption SHOULD be as much as 
> possible minimized during such rerouting." => "Traffic 
> disruption SHOULD be minimized as much as possible during 
> such rerouting." and "Unnecessary data duplication during 
> such rerouting SHOULD also be as much as possible minimized." 
> => "Unnecessary data duplication during such rerouting SHOULD 
> also be minimized as much as possible."
> 
> Section 5.8.3 - Same comments as for Section 5.8.2
> 
> Section 5.9, Paragraph 1 - "This requires that the same label 
> be negotiated will all downstream LSRs for the LSP." 'will' => 'with'
> 
> Section 5.16 "   A solution SHOULD avoid whatever single points of
> failures or propose some technical solutions for a failover 
> mechanism."
> remove 'whatever' as it's superfluous?
> 
> Section 6.1, Paragrpah 3 "Particularly it is RECOMMENDED that 
> the size of a MP2MP state on a LSR" remove the superfluous 
> 'a' before MP2MP
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> --
> Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Network Architect, BT Exact
>   
> E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
> Office: +44 (0)1473 648225
> Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205
>    Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

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