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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Does this document really need 6 front page authors?

2: The shepherd writeup says: "We are aware of several intentions to implement
this secification. An implementation poll has been sent to the working group
and as further information is received, the write-up will be updated." -- was
any further info received?

3: The shepherd writeup also says: "There is one small issue that I'm currently
clearing with IANA." -- is this the value of the status code E bit? Or some
other issue?

Nits:
1: There are are a number of unexpanded acronyms -- e.g: LSP is no "well known"
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt

2: Sec 1  Introduction
"LDP uses extended discovery mechanism to establish..." - "LDP uses *the*
extended discovery mechanism" (or discovery *mechanisms*)

3: Sec 1  Introduction
 "An LSR initiates extended discovery... " - "A LSR..." ("An Label Switch"
 wouldn't make much sense)

4: Sec 1  Introduction
"In addition, since the session is initiated and established after adjacency
formation, the responding LSR has no targeted applications information to
choose the targeted application" - "has no targeted applications information
available to choose which targeted application".

5: Sec 1  Introduction
"Also, targeted LDP application is mapped .." - "Also, the targeted LDP
application is mapped"

6: Sec 1.2 Terminology
"This document uses terminology discussed in [RFC7473] along with others
defined in this document." feels clumsy. How about: "In addition to the
terminology defined in [RFC7473], this document uses the following terms: "

7: Sec 2.1 Encoding
"An LSR MAY advertise that it is capable to negotiate a targeted LDP ..." - "An
LSR MAY advertise that it is capable of negotiating a targeted LDP ..."