Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control-03.txt

Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de> Sat, 06 August 2022 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <auerswald@fg-networking.de>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB85C157B48 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 03:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cn6VWlcnw9vZ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 03:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC907C14CF14 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 03:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2a02:3036:206:8c68:d44a:26d6:8926:e6a9] ([IPv6:2a02:3036:206:8c68:d44a:26d6:8926:e6a9]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 276AeN1w054860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 12:40:35 +0200
Message-ID: <bec96668-578c-6787-fd8c-e895bcda3c2c@fg-networking.de>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2022 12:40:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: mpls@ietf.org
References: <165977978896.56061.16253784138497697219@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de>
In-Reply-To: <165977978896.56061.16253784138497697219@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/4XyMoL671CLfOVE53bJUW6b73k8>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control-03.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 06 Aug 2022 10:40:42 -0000

Hi,

I think I noticed a typo in the abstract while reading the announcement:

On 06.08.22 11:56, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> [...]
> Abstract:
>     In RFC 8957 the concept of MPLS synonymos flow labels (SFL) was
>     introduced.  This document describes a simple control protocol that
>     runs over an associated control header to request, withdraw, and
>     extend the lifetime of such labels.  It is not the only control
>     protocol that might be used to support SFL, but it has the benefit of
>     being able to be used without modifying of the existing MPLS control
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think that should be either "modifying" (without the "of"), or
"modification of".

>     protocols.  The existence of this design is not intended to restrict
>     the ability to enhance an existing MPLS control protocol to add a
>     similar capability.
> 
>     A Querier MUST wait a configured time (suggested wait of 60 seconds)
>     before re-attempting a Withdraw request.  No more than three Withdraw
>     requests SHOULD be made.  These restrictions are to prevent
>     overloading the control plane of the actioning router.
> [...]

Br,
Erik