[mpls] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-11: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-11: 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-spring-entropy-label/



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

Thank you for writing this - it provides useful functionality.

Please see Joe Clarke's OpsDir review here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-11-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-06-25/
 - it mirrors comments made by a number of ADs, and also contains a significnat
number of nits (which would make the document better / more readable).

I had a question:
Section 4.  Entropy Readable Label Depth
" The Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) is defined as the number of
   labels a router can both:
   a.  Read in an MPLS packet received on its incoming interface(s)
       (starting from the top of the stack).
   b.  Use in its load-balancing function."
...
"In a distributed switching architecture, each linecard may have a different
capability in terms of ERLD."

In many cases, a device may have a different readable label depth in hardware /
fastpath than it does by punting the packet to the CPU / control plane. Perhaps
the ERLD should be defined as 'Use in its load-balancing function in the
dataplace / fast-path" (or something, this will need some wording).

I'd also like to say that I like Section 10 (Options considered) - sections
like this make a document much more satisfying (otherwise one has niggling
questions like "What didn't they do single ELs at the bottom of the stack?!") -
thank you for including it.

I also have some nits:
Section 1.  Introduction
"The hashing technique is required to perfom a per-flow load-balancing and thus
prevent packet disordering. " 1: Perform is a type 2: While 'disordering'
explains it well, 'reordering' is a much more common term, and will (I think)
cause less confusion.

"The MPLS architecture brings some challenges on the load-balancing as an LSR
(Label Switch Router) should be able to look at header fields that are beyond
the MPLS label stack." "on the load-balancing" doesn't really parse. Perhaps:
"... brings some load-balancing challenges, as..."?

Section 2.  Abbreviations and Terminology
SRGB is not defined on first use, nor it is in the Terminology section. Also,
sorting this alphabetically would be appreciated.