[mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: Discuss

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-residence-time/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for a clear document.  I think that this should be a
straightforward Discuss to better clarify.

In Section 4.8.1, it says "The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered
list, from egress node to
   ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path." but the
sub-TLVs (as most clearly
indicated by "4.8.1.3.  Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV" are actually meant
to be a list of interfaces.
It isn't clear whether these are supposed to be the egress interface, the
ingress interface, or just any
interface - or why sending just a Router ID wouldn't be sufficient.  
There is no indication as to whether
it is ok to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 address Sub-TLVs for the same
node or how to select which one
to use.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I am disappointed that the sub-TLV needed for an OSPFv3 Extended LSA
isn't defined.  While I understand that a normative reference isn't
desirable - instead of "left for future study", it would be better to say
that the sub-TLV should use the same format as in Sec 4.3 and that the
type allocation and full details are left to a future document.   This is
exactly how gaps are created for networks running only IPv6.   If
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-13 were not waiting for implementations
and had a clear time-frame for how and when to progress, this would also
be a Discuss.