Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: (with COMMENT)

[Santosh Esale <[e-mail]>]

Hello Ben, Please see inline for answers.


On 6/22/17, 7:48 AM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: 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:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>(I cleared my discuss. Alexey pointed out that the registration policies
>for
>unassigned ranges are explicitly mentioned in the table itself.
>Apologies, I
>missed that.)
>
>-General:  When you use the word "application", is a person skilled in
>MPLS
>automatically going to think in terms of the sort of "applications" listed
>here? If not, it would be good to have a paragraph early in the
>introduction
>that describes what you mean by "applications". As an application-layer
>person,
>I tend to think of it in terms of application-layer applications. Am I
>correct
>to assume that it would not make sense to register, for example, HTTP in
>the
>the LDP Targeted Application Identifier registry?
Correct. 
Also added the following definition of application to first paragraph -
Targeted 
LDP application is an application that uses tLDP session to exchange
information 
such as FEC-Label bindings with a peer LSR in the network.


>
>- 1.1: I noticed a number instances of at least "may" in lower case. If
>your
>intent is that lower case words not be treated as keywords, please
>consider
>using the new boilerplate from RFC 8174

Updated.

>
>Nits:
>
>-1, first paragraph: "LDP uses extended discovery mechanism..."
>Missing article before "discovery".

Updated.
>
>-2.2, paragraph 4 and 5, "... a maximum value, as 0xffff.": should "as" be
>"such as"?

Yes. Updated.

>
>-2.2, paragraphs 6 and 7: the "it" in the opening sentence of each
>paragraph
>has an unclear antecedent.

‘it’ was referring to an antecedent from the previous paragraph.
Can ‘it' jump over to refer to the noun in the previous paragraph ? :)
Updated to replace ‘it’ with the ‘noun’ .
>
Thanks,
Santosh on behalf of Authors