[mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 05 August 2019 12:25 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification@ietf.org, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, mpls@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156500795454.24520.16742493473141475413.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 05:25:54 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/L_D50pfFRc0Z1g7Hu3GjY4bYkYg>
Subject: [mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02: 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-rfc8287-len-clarification/



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

** Section 4, per “The figures in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8287] are
replaced by the below figures in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively”:

--  none of the diagram in Section 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 are explicitly labeled as
figures

-- section 4.3 contains two “figures” (one is called a table in the text and
the other has no designation).  Which one of these is supposed to be a
replacement for RFC8287 Section 5.3?

** Section 4.3.  Assuming that the second figure is the replacement for
RFC8287’s Section 5.3 figure, the length is still confusing to me.  The figure
in this draft appears to be a specific instance of the populated Sub-TLV.  The
existing figure in RFC8287 appears to be a generic depiction.  The new figure
doesn’t appear to be relevant (or presented incorrect information) if Adj Type
= 1 and Protocol = 1 (for example).

** Section 4.3.  Typo.  s/Protocol =0/Protocol = 0/

** Section 6. Recommend clarifying that there are no additional security
considerations (not that there aren’t any).  s/This document updates [RFC8287]
and does not introduce any security considerations/This document updates
[RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations/

[mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker