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

List:       mpls
Subject:    [mpls] =?euc-kr?b?yLi9xTogIMi4vcU6IFtSVEctRElSXSAgUnRnRGlyIHJl?= =?euc-kr?q?view=3A_draft-ietf-mpls-
From:       <ryoo () etri ! re ! kr>
Date:       2014-07-25 13:26:50
Message-ID: 5B4A6CBE3924BB41A3BEE462A8E0B75A2874D504 () SMTP2 ! etri ! info
[Download RAW message or body]

Lou,

Thanks for the comments.
As you suggested, RFC 6372 is added in Section 5.2 
and the sentence on bidirectional switching is moved to Section 5.7.

I am uploading a revision.

Again, thanks for your thorogh review.

Best regards,

Jeong-dong




________________________________________
º¸³½ »ç¶÷: Lou Berger [lberger@labn.net]
º¸³½ ³¯ ¥: 2014³â 7¿ù 25ÀÏ ±Ý¿äÀÏ ¿ÀÈÄ 8:48
¹Þ´  »ç¶÷: ·ùÁ¤µ¿
 üÁ¶: rtg-dir@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; \
draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org Á¦¸ñ: Re: \
[mpls] ȸ½Å: [RTG-DIR]  RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements-06.txt

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]