[mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04

[Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft -
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.

As this review request was marked by the working group chairs as "In prep for
WG last call", my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is
ready to be published. Please consider my comments as if they are early
last-call comments.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review Date: 13 April 2024
Intended Status: Informational

## Summary:

## Major:

- Section 2.x, the listed use-cases lack text that can link them to MNA.
Basically, how do they act as a use case for MNA? What indication and ancillary
data will be carried? I can imagine how but it makes sense for the use-case I-D
to be explicit about it for the reader.

- Sections 3 and 4 read more as a requirement for the MNA solution and not as
use-cases. Perhaps they could be rephrased?

## Minor:

- I found the sentence "This document describes cases that introduce functions
that are based on special processing by forwarding hardware." hard to parse.
Consider rephrasing. Why hardware?

- Add references for special-purpose labels and extended special-purpose labels.

- We need to list a stronger motivation for MNA than just saving
special-purpose label space.

- Change RFC XXXX to RFC 9543

- The NRP Policy is not defined in RFC 9543, maybe the better reference is
draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls?

- Security consideration, while I agree with the text but consider having some
useful pointers to other I-Ds could be useful.

## Nits:

- Please add MNA in the title of the I-D

- add "working group" at the end of the 2nd sentence in the abstract.

Thanks!
Dhruv