[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mpls
Subject:    Re: [mpls] =?utf-8?b?7ZqM7IugOiBbUlRHLURJUl0gIFJ0Z0RpciByZXZpZXc6IGRy?=
From:       Lou Berger <lberger () labn ! net>
Date:       2014-07-25 11:48:27
Message-ID: 53D2440B.5030503 () labn ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Jeong,
    I think the document looks good.  Two *minor* comments on the latest
rev:
 
On 7/10/2014 7:55 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> > - In section 4 and 5.2 you reference 5712 and 3209 as defining
>> > preemption terminology and behavior. I think 6372 is the right
>> > reference here as it defines both in the context of survivability and
>> > in dependent of control plane.
>> > [Authors] One concern is that RFC 6372 describes both soft and hard
> preemptions in the context of extra traffic, which is not exactly the
> case for SMP.
>> >
>> > Then 6372 should be referenced and the difference should be described.
>  Otherwise readers are likely to think you just used the wrong reference
> and that 6372's text applies.  6372 is after all titled "MPLS-TP
> Survivability Framework"...
>> >
>> > [JR] O.K. 6372 will be referenced and we can add the following
> sentence as the third sentence in the paragraph: "The traffic of lower
> priority paths in this document can be viewed as the extra traffic being
> preempted in [RFC6372]."

Section 4 looks good, but the reference is missing from in 5.2.

>    Bidirectional protection switching SHOULD be supported in SMP.

This is really in the wrong section.  bidirectional PS has nothing to do
with reversion.  As before, I think section 5.7 is the best place for it.

Lou

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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]