[mpls] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-03: (with COMMENT)

Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 14 March 2019 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2709128CB7; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation@ietf.org, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, mpls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.94.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <155255907978.2609.2747211710494136361.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:24:39 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/2g0E8MsE4vzzP0W8UWklA9deHFU>
Subject: [mpls] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:24:40 -0000

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Without having looked before I was thinking this was Standard Track, I'm
surprised it is not.

You say:
   1.  Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination
       MPLS node on to the packet,
and then say:
   The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels
   beneath it)
So it looks like that any label which might have been pushed before the SFF
label is/are simply ignored at the other end. I'm not asking for the behaviour
to be specified and I understand that strictly speaking the text is not
forbidding something to happen based on these labels but still it might be
useful to explicitly say that these labels may be processed.