Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 16 Sep 2015, at 5:04, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
>> -- 2.3, last paragraph: "Along with the PLR MP Status a MP FEC TLV 
>> MUST
>> be included"
>> Does that mean that both MUST be included, or if the first is 
>> included,
>> the second MUST also be?
>
> Both MUST be included.

Then I suggest something like "Both the PRL MP Status and an MP FEC TLV 
MUST..."

>
>>
>> -- 4.1.3, last paragraph:
>> Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it 
>> doesn't
>> justify a MUST?
>
> Well, its really an implementation choice to save resources being 
> using in deleting and re-creating the tLDP session. If the 
> implementation has means to deal with this or has other mechanism to 
> solve this problem, that is fine too.

Okay, A few words to that effect might be helpful.


[...]

>>
>> "MUST encode PLR Status Value Element": Missing article.
>
> What do you mean here?

"MUST encode _the_ PLR Status Value Element". (or possibly _a_ PRL 
Status Value Element)

Thanks!

Ben.