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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(I cleared my discuss. Alexey pointed out that the registration policies for
unassigned ranges are explicitly mentioned in the table itself. Apologies, I
missed that.)

-General:  When you use the word "application", is a person skilled in MPLS
automatically going to think in terms of the sort of "applications" listed
here? If not, it would be good to have a paragraph early in the introduction
that describes what you mean by "applications". As an application-layer person,
I tend to think of it in terms of application-layer applications. Am I correct
to assume that it would not make sense to register, for example, HTTP in the
the LDP Targeted Application Identifier registry?

- 1.1: I noticed a number instances of at least "may" in lower case. If your
intent is that lower case words not be treated as keywords, please consider
using the new boilerplate from RFC 8174

Nits:

-1, first paragraph: "LDP uses extended discovery mechanism..."
Missing article before "discovery".

-2.2, paragraph 4 and 5, "... a maximum value, as 0xffff.": should "as" be
"such as"?

-2.2, paragraphs 6 and 7: the "it" in the opening sentence of each paragraph
has an unclear antecedent.