Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt

> >Please give the intended category of the work...
> >Proposed Category: Best Common Practice
>
> this is normally done outside of the draft.

The draft needs to indicate its intended status so that folks can review it with that in mind.

If you don't want to say that the proposed status is BCP then please at least say informational.

> >Please correct draft name as it appears in the title and footers.
> ><draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt
> > >draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt
>
> fixed last week.

Hah! But the secretariat has published it according to your first submission.

Actually, the version on the LabN site is also wrong.

I don't mean the document name, I mean the draft name as it appears throughout the document.

> >Abstract
> >Please remove [bracketed] citation from abstract.
> done
>
> >Abstract
> >    This note clarifies the procedures for the control of a label used on
> >    an egress output/downstream interface.
> >I think this would be better phrased as...
> >    This note clarifies the procedures for the control of the label used
> >    on output/downstream interface of the final (egress) Label Switching
> >    Router (LSR) of a Label Switched Path (LSP).
> sure.
>
> >1. Background
> >
> >    The ability to control a label used on an egress output/downstream
> >    interface was one of the early requirements for GMPLS.
> >Again, rephrase as...
> >    The ability to control the label used on the output/downstream
> >    interface of an egress LSR was one of the early requirements for
> >    GMPLS.
> sure, why not.
>
> >2.1. ERO Procedures
> >
> >    Egress Control occurs when the node processing an ERO is the egress
> >    and the ERO contains one or more label subobjects.
> >In view of the text quoted from section 6 of an early draft of GMPLS,
> >we either need to re-cast this whole draft as "Egress Label Control"
> >or we need to generalize the text here as egress control that allows
> >the control of interface, component link and label.
> >I prefer the second option.
> no problem. changed to ... "one or more subobjects related to the
> output/downstream interface"
>
> >Compare with section 2.2 which is more general.
> >
> >    To support Egress Control, an egress checks to see if the received
> >    ERO contains an outgoing/downstream interface. If it does, the type
> >    of the subobject or subobjects following the interface are examined.
> >    If the associated LSP is unidirectional, one subobject is examined.
> >    Two subobjects are examined for bidirectional LSPs. If the U-bit of
> >    the subobject being examined is clear (0), then the value of the
> >    label is copied into a new Label_Set object. Note, this Label_Set
> >    object is for internal use only. This Label_Set object indicates the
> >    label value that MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated
> >    with the LSP on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface.
> >Not withstanding "this Label_Set object is for internal use only", I
> >find this text a bit peculiar!
> >You really just want to say that this subobject is used to specify the
> >label that the egress MUST apply to traffic that it forwards from this
> >LSP. (Compare with the next paragraph where you do not describe
> >creating an Upstream_Label object for internal use only.)
> >If you insist on talking about the Label_Set object, you will have to be
> >far more specific because there are four different varieties of that
> >object.
>
> I think the wording is consistent with RFC3473 and unambiguous. Please
> suggest alternate wording.

Well! I can't be held responsible for the failings of the editor of that RFC :-)

Section 5.1.1 says with respect to the ERO Label Subobject...

   If the U-bit of the
   subobject being examined is clear (0), then value of the label is
   copied into a new Label_Set object. This Label_Set object MUST be
   included on the corresponding outgoing Path message.

So I see where you are coming from, but I think this text is aimed at

specifying how you build the outgoing Path message, not how you

manage the label allocation on your downstream interface. It is

wrong to suggest that an implementation must create a protocol

object for this purpose if no Path message is to be sent.

In fact, since there is no corresponding Resv with a Label Object

we need to pin this text down a little more clearly. How about the

    To support Egress Control, an egress checks to see if the received
    ERO contains an outgoing/downstream interface. If it does, the type
    of the subobject or subobjects following the interface are examined.
    If the associated LSP is unidirectional, one subobject is examined.
    Two subobjects are examined for bidirectional LSPs. If the U-bit of
the subobject being examined is clear (0), then the value of the

label MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated with the LSP

on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface.

> >    including if the listed label(s) are not acceptable or cannot be
> >    supported in forwarding, SHOULD result in the generation of a PathErr
> >    message containing a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error.
> >I'd prefer you to be more explicit...
> >... containing a "Routing Problem"/"Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error.
> sure, will use phrasing from rfc3209.
>
> >3. Security Considerations
> >
> >< This note clarifies procedures defined in [RFC3473]. As such, no new
> >< security considerations are introduced.
> > > This note reiterates procedures defined in [RFC3473], but does not
> > > define any new procedures. As such, no new security considerations
> > > are introduced.
> okay.
>
> ><5. References
> > >5. Normative References
> >
> >Need BCP 78, and 79 as informational references.
> >Also RFC 3668.
>
> will do, but do you really want me to reference BCP 79 and RFC 3668?

It is unclear whether this is a requirement, but since the boilerplate text makes these references it seems reasonable to include them in the list.

> >8. Intellectual Property
> >
> >Missing the personal disclaimer...
> >    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
> >    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
> >    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
> >    RFC 3668.
> sure.
>
> >Don't need the footer...
> >Generated on: Mon Mar 15 10:52:32 2004
>
> picky, picky, picky...

That's what I'm paid for.

Thanks, Lou. Looking forward to seeing the revision published.