[mpls] AD action: Unblocking cluster C436 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl)

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've been looking at draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl. It is blocked in the RFC
Editor Queue waiting for a normative reference, draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control,
which still has issues to resolve.

The reference to draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control is made in two places in the
form of references to the original draft, draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control. 

- The reference in section 13.2 is a piece of XML fudgery. It exists because
the
  other reference is within "artwork" in the XML and so throws an error in
idnits.
  The 13.2 reference is accompanied by an RFC-Editor-Note requesting that
the
  text be deleted. We can ignore this reference.

- The reference in 9.1 is, in fact, an error! The document at hand is a
generic
  specification and should not depend on a particular solution (control
plane
  or management plane), but the current definition of "SFL Batch" points to
  a specific protocol solution in draft-bryant/ietf-mpls-sfl-control. If we
fix
  this definition, we remove the need for the normative reference.

Hence:

In Section  9.1 "RFC6374 SFL TLV"
OLD
   SFL Batch The SFL batch that this SFL was allocated as part
             of see [I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control]
NEW
   SFL Batch An identifier for a collection of SFLs grouped together for
             management and control purposes.
END

---

In section 13.2 "Allocation of MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object"
OLD
   RFC Editor please delete this para
   [RFC3032][I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control][RFC5036]
NEW
   RFC Editor please delete this para
   [RFC3032][RFC5036]
END

---

In section 16.1  "Normative References"

Remove the reference to [I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control]

===

I have agreed these changes with Stewart Bryant as the principal editor.
I hope the AD can agree this change, and we can move the document forward.

Cheers,
Adrian