[mpls] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-11: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-11: 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-spring-entropy-label/



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

Small process nit:

RFC 7855, which is informational, is listed as a normative reference in this
document, which is PS. I don't see RFC 7855 on the downref registry (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ ), and this document didn't mention
the downref in its IETF LC announcement (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ROPiwT5P_oM5PYBRoVeY7L_vsFQ
)

RFC 8067 §2 lets the IESG process the document anyway, and I think we should,
but I want to flag this for explicit consideration. This also interacts with
Benjamin's observation that perhaps this document should go back to being
informational.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§7.2.3:

>  All
>  routers have an ERLD of 10, expect P1 and P2 which have an ERLD of 4.

Nit: "except"