Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Agree with Loa's interpretation of "update" and Adrian's, I don't think it is helpful to a reader to be directed to read a long string of RFCs by this RFC. Of course, the IESG may question (as history has shown) our definition, but this is consistent with our approach on our RFCs.

Thanks Eric for double checking - and your careful review!
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:47 AM
To: 'Loa Andersson' <[e-mail]>; 'Eric Gray' <eric.gray=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

So I understand Eric's point about updates of updates.

We're updating 7274, and 7274 updated <insert long list here>, so surely we are updating <long list> as well.

What Loa says is that we are not updating the bit of 7274 that updated <long list>. He's right about that, but it is maybe not such a strong point. After all, someone directed from <member of list> to read 7274 might miss the wider material.

But I think that historically (Deborah to confirm) "updates" is only used for direct updating. That is, the reader is expected to walk through the chain of documents by finding "<member of list> is updated by 7274" and also finding "7274 is updated by [This.I-D]".

(This might all be different if we were obsoleting 7274, but we're not 😊)

A
-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 11 August 2020 11:41
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

Eric,

Tnx for comments, very useful.

I will await instructions from Deborah and the post an updated version.
Most of your are straightforward and will be updated as you  suggest.

Two small comments below.

On 11/08/2020 00:53, Eric Gray wrote:

The duplication of RFC 3202 is a typo.

As what update what in:
> Note: I am not sure, but this may be more than a Nit - if, for instance, the intention was to list a different RFC.  The paragraph claims the draft updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032 - but RFC 7274 claims to update RFC 3038, RFC 3209, RFC 3811, RFC 4182, RFC 4928, RFC 5331, RFC 5586, RFC 5921, RFC 5960, RFC 6391, RFC 6478, and RFC 6790 as well.

What RFC 7274 does to the listed RFCs is to rename them from "Resereved
Labels" to "Special Purpose Labels"

The terminology draft aligns with this. First bullet in in Section 3
says:


    o  Collectively, the two ranges are known as Special Purpose Labels
       (SPL).

The changes in this draft and RFC 7274 are not overlapping.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]