[mpls] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-07: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 05 December 2019 01:20 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang@ietf.org, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, Nicolai Leymann <n.leymann@telekom.de>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, tsaad.net@gmail.com, mpls@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <157550881573.11168.15448870540233488113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:20:15 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/QZtpKGadcnSiUyHZpydP-FfF0d8>
Subject: [mpls] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-07: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-07: 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-yang/



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

Thanks to all contributors and working group members who worked on this
document.

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

The front page contains six authors' names, while the "Authors' Addresses"
section at the end of the document contains 10. To avoid complications in
AUTH48, please clearly move all but six (or, preferably, five -- see RFC 7322
section 4.1.1) such names to the "Contributors" section.

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

I share Ben's concerns regarding the way these models treat IPv4 as
"basic" functionality, and IPv6 as "extended" functionality.
See https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for the current
IAB guidance on IPv6 in IETF protocols.

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

>       FEC-Label bindings:
>           FEC 203.0.113.1/32:
>             advertised: local-label 16000
>               peer 192.0.2.1:0
>               peer 192.0.2.2:0
>               peer 192.0.2.3:0
>             received:
>               peer 192.0.2.1:0, label 16002, used-in-forwarding=Yes
>               peer 192.0.2.2:0, label 17002, used-in-forwarding=No
>           FEC 203.0.113.2/32:
>              . . . .
>           FEC 198.51.100.0/24:
>              . . . .
>
>       Address bindings:
>           Addr 192.0.2.10:
>             advertised
>           Addr 192.0.2.1:
>             received, peer 192.0.2.1:0
>           Addr 192.0.2.2:
>             received, peer 192.0.2.2:0
>           Addr 192.0.2.3:
>             received, peer 192.0.2.3:0
>
>                                Figure 12

Please update this example to use IPv6, or add an example that shows IPv6.
Refer again to the IAB statement cited above for details.

[mpls] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mp… Adam Roach via Datatracker