Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-00.txt

From: "James R. Leu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:08:44 -0400

Hello,

While reading draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-00.txt, I noticed a couple of
areas which could use some editing or clarification.

Section 9.4.5 "EndVerifyAck Message"
------------------------------------
The phrase "The EndVerifyNack object has the following format:"
Should be "The EndVerifyAck object has the following format:"

Section 9.1 "Common Header"
---------------------------
Isn't it common practice to byte align fields?  If so I suggest:
    
    0                   1                   2                   3 
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   | Vers  |   (Reserved)         |     Flags      |    Msg Type   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |                      Control Channel Id                       | 
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

Section 9.4.6 "Test Message"
----------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Link Id value which is being
exchanged used in draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-03.txt section 5.2.1 
"COMPONENT_INTERFACE_ID Object Class" where it is specified as a 16 bit
number?

(the same statement holds true every place where Link Id is specified)

Section 9.5.1 "LinkSummary Message"
-----------------------------------
If my understanding is correct, a Link Summary message could contain a
sub object for every working channel between the two nodes.  If this is correct
isn't there a concern that the resulting PDU will exceed the MTU or 
available receive buffers on a node?  Maybe a Maximum Protocol PDU size should
be negotiated during the configuration state.

General
-------
I know this is being very "nit-picky", but you will need a section addressing
the implications of using IPv6 addresses before this can move move towards
RFC state.

Jim
-- 
James R. Leu
Software Engineer
Laurel Networks, Inc
[email-masked]

---

From: Jonathan Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:04:42 -0700

James,
  Thanks for the comments.  Responses in-line.

-Jonathan

<snip>
> Section 9.4.5 "EndVerifyAck Message"
Thanks for pointing out the typo.

> Section 9.1 "Common Header"
Good suggestion.
 
> Section 9.4.6 "Test Message"
You are correct that the Link Id value is the same as the Component
Interface Identifier in the bundle draft and the next version of LMP will be
realigned appropriately with the bundle draft.

> Section 9.5.1 "LinkSummary Message"
The LinkSummary message, like all other LMP messages except the Test
message, are IP encoded, so normal IP fragmentation should take care of
this.

RFC state.
We'll work on this.