Last Call comments on draft-ietf-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-00.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

First, to repeat my comments from just before San Diego...

> 2. Introduction
>    Even in the case of packet MPLS, when link failure detection is
>    performed by some means other than RSVP Hellos (e.g., [BFD]), the use
>    of node-id based Hellos is also optimal for detection of signaling
>    adjacency failures for RSVP-TE.
> This optimally only applies when there is more than one link between a pair of node,
> right?
> Say so?
> Ditto section 3.
>
> 2. Introduction
>    This document also clarifies the use of node-id based Hellos when all
>    or a sub-set of TE links are unnumbered. This draft also clarifies
>    use of node-id based Hellos in these scenarios.
> Repeated?
>
> 3. Node-id based RSVP Hellos
>    When a node receives a Hello packet where the destination IP address
>    is its local node-id as advertised in the IGP-TE topology, the node
>    MUST use its node-id in replying to the Hello message.
> This is an interesting use of MUST when the receiving node knows that the use of node-id
> is inappropriate.
>
>
> I think it is really cute that Danny and Reshad have decided to swap email addresses :-)

Further Technical Points:

Would you like to add a comment about IPv6? In particular, in an IPv6 network, from where
does the "Node ID" come?

Section 4.
While I agree with this section, I think you need to justify your statement.

Section 5.
Again, I agree. But can you say *why* no new security issues are introduced?


Editorial nits:

Title and Abstract don't actually give any clue that you are talking about MPLS and GMPLS!
You need to add this.

Please run the draft through the ID-nits script at http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/

You have IPR boilerplate issues to sort out.

You can remove the "Routing Area ID Summary" at this point.

You don't need a Table of Contents (but you are welcome to keep it).

Section 2
"not terminated on  data bearer links? interfaces even if (some of) "
-- spurious double space
-- spurious question mark

Please try to be consistent with "Hello" or "hello"

Section 3
"the neighbor?s node-id in the destination address field of the IP"

-- spurious question mark

Please use page throws and sort out the double page numbering.

Please be consistent "node-id" or "node id" (See the title!)

References need a bit of formatting.

ISIS-TE is now RFC3784



Will definitely need a respin at the end of last call.
Thanks,
Adrian