Dear Authors, et al.,
firstly, I'll address format of MPLS-RT review as set by WG chairs:
- The document is coherent, clearly useful and technically sound
- The document is ready to be adopted by MPLS WG
Now several comments and possible typo corrections:
- Perhaps re-word "No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses a TLV" into "So far none of defined Associated Channel Types uses a TLV as specified by RFC 5586". That seems to be more accurate as MPLS-TP BFD Proactive CV message format uses Source MEP-ID
TLV, though not according to RFC 5586, that might be viewed as example of ACH TLV.
- Introduction, first para, first sentense s/is/if/
- Introduction, fourth para, in "However, of the 18 ACH Channel Types currently defined none allows the use of ACH TLVs [IANA-ACH]" I'd consider s/allows/requires/ to stress that up to now we managed to develop protocol suite without use of a single ACH
- Introduction, last para "This document determines that ACH TLVs are not useful …" might be re-worded to "This document states that ACH TLVs, as specified in RFC 5586, are not useful …"
- Section 2, note that references to ACH TLVs exist in RFC 5586 outside of Section 3, e.g. Section 18.104.22.168, p.10, as well as in several figures, e.g. figure 6.
- Section 3, if motivation of this document is to negate MUST in Section 3 of RFC 5586 that ACH TLV Header preceeds G-ACh message, then would following sufficiently express it: "A G-ACh message MAY NOT be preceeded by an ACH TLV Header."
- Section 6, I think that we might only remove too restrictive requirement of RFC 5586 while allowing use of ACH TLV following G-ACh message.
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:01 AM
To: Lizhong Jin; Jia He; Gregory Mirsky; Eric Osborne (eosborne); Martin Vigoureux
Cc: draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv <at> tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org
Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv
Jia, Lizhong, Greg and Eric,
You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.
Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own document.
Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is the document technically sound? We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready to be considered
for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
Are you able to review this draft by Mat 24, 2013?
(as MPLS WG chair)
Loa Andersson email: loa <at> mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert loa <at> pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64