I support publication. Please consider my comments as LC comments.
Regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations To: ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org> Dear Authors, please find my comments below: * page 9, first para s/we loose out/we lose out/ - two times * page 9, second to last para "Partition of the network into incompatible and unconnected islands is neither desirable nor acceptable." While I agree with the former, the latter is highly subjective and absolutely unenforceable. As vendors we give operators loaded gun and a warning. What they do with them might surprise and amaze us all. * Section 4.4, first para: "There are three MPLS signaling control protocols used for distributing labels to set up LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks: LDP, RSVP-TE, and GMPLS." Perhaps GMPLS in this list should be replaced by BGP/MPLS. RSVP-TE is equally used as signaling protocol to distribute MPLS and GMPLS label information. There are three paradigms that operate with distinct sets of constructs: * LDP MPLS, a.k.a. IP/MPLS; * TE-MPLS; * TE-GMPLS. * Section 4.4, second para. Would note that relationship between LDP and TE-(G)MPLS networks might be not only as peering but as client-server, e.g. LDP over RSVP-TE tunnels that could be MSPL-TP. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
