[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Tarek,

First, it is not the tradition (or at least not required) in the MPLS WG 
that the author respond to the WGLC, but since other co-authors has 
responded. I support progressing the draft.

To Greg's comment on using RFC XXXX, I'm not in favour of this. Best 
would be to use the correct title, and alternatively use 
[I-D.ietf-mpls.mna-requirements]. Using a link will cause a nits-tool 
error and also inform us when the RFC number is available. We or the RFC 
Editor may change.

/Loa

Den 2024-06-18 kl. 21:09, skrev Greg Mirsky:
> Hi, Tarek et al.,
> I read the current version of the draft and found it concise. I 
> support progressing this document to the publication. I have a minor 
> question. As I understand it, in the last paragraph of Abstract, 
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/> is 
> referenced by the title:
>    Some of these
>    actions are defined in existing MPLS specifications, while others
>    require extensions to existing specifications to meet the
>    requirements found in "Requirements for MPLS Network Actions".
> But the full title of the MNA requirements draft is slightly 
> different, "Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network 
> Actions (MNA)". To avoid a possible confusion and misreference, and 
> since both documents are progressing closely, perhaps the reference 
> could use RFC XXXX format with a note to RFC Editor pointing to 
> yet-to-be-assigned RFC number of MNA Requirements draft.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Dear WG,
>
>     This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for
>     draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk.
>
>     Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are
>     opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate
>     your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have
>     read the latest version, and it is ready for publication
>
>     in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most
>     welcome. Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list
>     ([e-mail])
>
>     If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
>
>     Note, currently there are 2 IPR disclosures against this document
>     at
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk>
>
>     This poll runs until July 5. 2024.
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
[e-mail]
[e-mail]