Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi again Carlos,

> I meant to type ³RFC 4990 is GMPLS specific², and not what I wrote.
> 
> Please ignore the associated consequences from my typo, I was thinking
> ³MPLS-TP² when I wrote the sentence in my response :-)

Yeah, I know. Sometimes those fingers just won't type what you tell them to.
But, of course, and as you recognise in the new revision you just sent me, 4990
is not GMPLS specific since section 8 clearly notes it applies to MPLS-TE and
GMPLS.

> Basically, Section 3.5 says three things:
> 1. Major Gap! RFC 3811 TC for MPLS (which are use in a bunch of MPLS MIB
> Modules) lack support for IPv6 in specific cases (Gap) and one I-D tries
> to resolve that gap (incidentally authored by one of our contributors)

Yup. It says this. And that is what I am questioning.
I agree that the 3811bis I-D tries to fix this gap, I just don't agree that it
is a "major" because 4990 shows how it can be circumvented.
That is not to say that 3811bis could not be valuable (with some work), but it
would be very wrong to imply that IPv6 deployment or operation is in some way
gated by this because there are ways of handling the situation.
This to me makes the issue minor, not major.

> 2. Other MIB Modules had adequate support for IPv4 and IPv6
> 3. RFC 4990 takes if further for GMPLS (NOT MPLS-TP!) describing how to
> handle IPv6.

See above (and note that it's OK to include MPLS-TP in the list :-)

I think we should continue to work through this discussion, but that the
document as it is should go forward to the IESG.

Thanks,
Adrian