Re: MRN ext. doc

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

Hi Dimitri,

A very quick scan of this I-D raises a few points.

===
Section 2 references [GR-TELINK]. Is this intended to be 
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-08.txt?
There is nothing in the references section to indicate.
===
Section 8 needs to be resolved
===
It would make sense for section 7 to reference 
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework
===
We will definitely (well, very probably) be asked if we can show 
traceability back to the requirements. In fact, RFC 5339 includes section 
4.1 that gives traceability from the evaluation back to the requirements. 
Section 2 of this document does not quite give the same level of 
traceability such that it is necessary to read most of 5339 to ensure that 
all requirements have been met.
===
References need updating. idnits should help you.
===
Section 4 refers to section 8.2 of RFC 4206. Should be 6.2?
===
Section 4 appears to consider only the mapped server model (allowing a many 
to one mapping), but not the multiplexed server model. Is it the intention 
to defer this to Section 5?
===
Section 5 does not include reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis 
even though this is mentioned in RFC 5339. Shouldn't it?
Actually, there is no mention in section 5 of using RFC 4206 procedures to 
set up FAs to form virtual TE links although that is clearly intended in 
4206.
===
The Call-Attributes object C-Num is picked from the 11bbbbbb class. Why? 
Surely if any node that processes the Notify message does not understand the 
object, you want the Call to fail.
===
I'm puzzled that the Call described in section 5.1 does not indicate to the 
intended LSP egress in which layer or region the soon-to-be-set-up LSP will 
be required to operate.
===
I don't find section 3.2.1 clear on the co-existence within the Link TLV of 
the IACD sub-TLV and the ISCD sub-TLV [RFC4203].
===
I think it would be valuable to indicate in the Abstract that this work is 
limited to the application of a single TE domain across multiple regions or 
layers.
Furthermore, in the Introduction where this point is raised, it would be 
helpful to explain the meaning of a "single TE domain." There is a passable 
definition in RFC 5212 section 1.
It would be worth clarifying whether a single TE domain can be served by 
more than one IGP instance. This is hinted at in section 5.7 of RFC 5212.
===

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: MRN ext. doc


folks -

before asking for LC, we plan an update of this doc. see:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensio
ns-02.txt>

please let us know if you see any missing description/holes in this
version (beside its IANA section).

thx,
-d.