[mpls] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Jari Arkko" <[e-mail]>]

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07: 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-rfc4379bis/



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

Thank you for writing this document. I will recommend its approval, but
before that we have a fix a couple of issues.

A Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies raised a number of valid points. The
ones worthy of a Discuss are the following:

1. Section 3.4 protocol definition refers to Appendix A.2 which is
depracated/non-normative. I think you have to decide which parts are
still in the normative spec, and keep those in the body of the document.

2. Reference to the R flag in 6.2.3 seems wrong, as the flag isn't
actually allocated in RFC 6426 due to an oversight. Maybe either explain
the situation and the existing errata, or just define the flag in this
RFC and be done with it?


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

Please work with the Gen-ART reviewer on the remaining issues as well.