Subject: Preliminary response to draft-isoyama-policy-mpls-info-model-00.txt

From: Yoram Ramberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:05:59 -0500

All -

I've read this draft and I think it is great. It takes a simpler approach 
to the problem than the other draft (draft-chadha-policy-mpls-te-00.txt), 
althought there are clear similarities. After all, there are only so many 
ways to skin this cat. Again, I'm no MPLS expert so I'm not going to 
comment  on the actual semantics of LPS provisioning classes themselves 
(although it is quite clear to me how they fit in).

It's very likely that the WG will ask the authors of both drafts to combine 
forces and merge their efforts so that the WG can adopt this and create a 
"draft-ietf-policy-mpls-..." document. We can't endorse two MPLS TE 
standards. For example, the Chadha documents contains construct to specify 
"backup" LSP provisioning. I don;t think this draft addresses this kind of 
policy.

Here, as in the other draft there may be some issues in the actual class 
definition. For example, no property 'MAY'/'MUST' designation. I would also 
like to see some tect explaining the implication of decision strategy 
(fist-match/all-match) within a policy group.

This draft allows for a direct utilization of QPIM's actions. It leaves 
implementors a lot of room to employ various technologies in enforcing the 
QoS policy over the LSPs. I like that.

The example is very good and quite clear. I particularly liked the clear 
modeling of a complete policy rule. This shows clearly how to place policy 
rules for MPLS TE in the overall PCIM paradigm. In addition, the direct 
utilization of QPIM's constructs to profile traffic shines through the 
examples. I'd still like to see a couple of examples to model a bit more 
complex policy (to show that it can be done).

I hope to meet the authors of both documents next week in the IETF 
gathering and talk to them some more about this.

Thanx, *Yoram