IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 28 October 2016 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
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 0A4E7129476; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 GZ3TaNQlceKs; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 644FE12999E; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2694; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1477618423; x=1478828023; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Hu0ZklGLuJsEMNHLt5wPn1cZQy3Nr8qVSxY+AixG0jk=; b=dv0aW+GFm45XYqUzs5EsF5CDMfS3kEDppD/jvp8g10voT8Rl9pD7r7mS RzOgetNJaJQXQPtqXKVk30yvDzXvj7aQmWJ/uNQ0BEXNw/JBpvqoZvP7+ 1m1bWU0mAH5T8zOP1/IcZW7IHjRiKpbR2N7q9n/HIdc0UhVa9zyaFWjTb w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B0AQB6qhJY/4YNJK1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgyoBAQEBAR1YfQeNL5Z+kjCCD4IHKIV7AhqBZj8UAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEYgEBAQMBIxFFBQsCAQgYAgImAgICMBUQAgQOBYhMCA6xTYx5AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWBB4U2gX0IglCEGREBHIMELIIvBYhFkVEBhiyJdoFuhG2JKY0LhAABHjZfg0+BOnIBhXCBIIEJAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,406,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="340557595"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Oct 2016 01:33:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (xch-rtp-019.cisco.com [64.101.220.159]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9S1XgqU024734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:33:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (64.101.220.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:33:41 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:33:41 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Thread-Topic: Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSL9h/YOdeaSWJy0ObxpDLStORH6C9WfIA
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:33:41 +0000
Message-ID: <3E43C605-85FF-4CF0-8662-8E8798D4A2D2@cisco.com>
References: <147752100043.2959.17936359559442686266.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <147752100043.2959.17936359559442686266.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.225.82]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5FD2E895FE8E5047ABC97E9F2A52FC69@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/HPndtM_jJbmWrhNV4Vv3gzUD5MI>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "elwynd@dial.pipex.com" <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:33:45 -0000

Jari,

Revision -08, which just posted, should address all of the issues and nits from Elwyn Davies’s Gen-ART review.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07: Discuss
> 
> 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-rfc4379bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for writing this document. I will recommend its approval, but
> before that we have a fix a couple of issues.
> 
> A Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies raised a number of valid points. The
> ones worthy of a Discuss are the following:
> 
> 1. Section 3.4 protocol definition refers to Appendix A.2 which is
> depracated/non-normative. I think you have to decide which parts are
> still in the normative spec, and keep those in the body of the document.
> 
> 2. Reference to the R flag in 6.2.3 seems wrong, as the flag isn't
> actually allocated in RFC 6426 due to an oversight. Maybe either explain
> the situation and the existing errata, or just define the flag in this
> RFC and be done with it?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Please work with the Gen-ART reviewer on the remaining issues as well.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email