IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Tue, 11 August 2020 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84AB3A0F84; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IIpXOib02hNp; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 340B83A0F82; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.19] (unknown [122.2.101.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DD8532757C; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:41:09 +0200 (CEST)
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, rtg-ads@ietf.org
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology.all@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR15MB31031AF698C6F7314DF482E097440@MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <366be63f-7bc3-39a6-a2a2-de2d974982a5@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:41:04 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR15MB31031AF698C6F7314DF482E097440@MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/F3szBxxiMjwjGvDUIFkYSoHX3n4>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:41:16 -0000

Eric,

Tnx for comments, very useful.

I will await instructions from Deborah and the post an updated version.
Most of your are straightforward and will be updated as you  suggest.

Two small comments below.

On 11/08/2020 00:53, Eric Gray wrote:

The duplication of RFC 3202 is a typo.

As what update what in:
> Note: I am not sure, but this may be more than a Nit - if, for instance, the intention was to list a different RFC.  The paragraph claims the draft updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032 - but RFC 7274 claims to update RFC 3038, RFC 3209, RFC 3811, RFC 4182, RFC 4928, RFC 5331, RFC 5586, RFC 5921, RFC 5960, RFC 6391, RFC 6478, and RFC 6790 as well.

What RFC 7274 does to the listed RFCs is to rename them from "Resereved
Labels" to "Special Purpose Labels"

The terminology draft aligns with this. First bullet in in Section 3
says:


    o  Collectively, the two ranges are known as Special Purpose Labels
       (SPL).

The changes in this draft and RFC 7274 are not overlapping.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email