[mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 11 September 2017 11:37 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2E013304B; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt@ietf.org, tsaad@cisco.com, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, mpls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.60.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150512983243.9691.9751851324237626342.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:37:12 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Dv68idbAiR8shzg8lbVqnoGX1N8>
Subject: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:37:12 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: 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-ldp-mrt/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) I was just wondering if it was considered to just use one flag of the reserved field of the multi-topology extension in RFC7307 to advertise MRT support, given that MT must always advertised as well...? 2) Why would a node withdraw the MRT capability/ when would it send a MRT advertisement with S=0? 3) If you update the document, please also see the gen-art review: there are many small nits which will probably also be caught by the RFC editor but if you can fix them now, that's even better!
- [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Chris Bowers
- Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Chris Bowers
- Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)