From: "Kamran Raza (skraza)" <skraza@cisco.com>
To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>,
 "draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv@tools.ietf.org"
 <draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv@tools.ietf.org>,
 "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>,
 Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of
 draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
Thread-Index: AQHNX3x0Fyol9spda0Gcw1+S4iD0d5csmrwA
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:44:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CC2A0FA5.FA8C%skraza@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9316_1342021642_4FFDA00A_9316_494_4_4FFDA044.5070606@orange.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <AAFEAC78B9072141810E4324F1FA28B9@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of
 draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
Precedence: list

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your review. Please see inline [skraza]:

On 12-07-11 11:47 AM, "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have reviewed the draft and agree with others reviewers: this document
>is straightforward, useful, well written, and ready for adoption.
>
>Simple as it is, it might even be ready for a WGLC ;-).
>
>I have however, one comment.  It was suggested that the document should
>make it MANDATORY for future LDP application to state the applicability
>of the negotiated mode.  I wonder if a simpler solution could be
>considered: say that by default, unless a new application says that the
>negotiated mode applies, then by default it the negotiated mode would
>not apply.  This would possibly reduce the overhead for authors of
>future specs, and avoid possible confusion raising forgetting to apply
>this MUST. =20

[skraza]: On the flip side, can this still not cause confusion if an
author=20
of a future (mode-bound) application misses this (default)
statement/requirement;
and thinks/assumes (just based on RFC 5036) that its new application will
use the negotiated mode, whereas, in reality, the negotiated mode won't
apply=20
unless stated explicitly.

For this revision of draft, I will take the comment (use of "MUST") from
other authors,=20
and keep your suggestion open for WG discussion/consensus/closure in
subsequent Revs.

Rgds,
-- Kamran

>Of course, this approach is only valid if we believe that
>applications that need to rely on the negotiated mode are rare and
>easily identified.
>
>-Thomas
>
>
>2012-06-20, Ross Callon :
>> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
>> draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv.
>> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
>> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
>> the document technically sound? We are interested in knowing whether the
>> document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn=B9t
>> have to
>> be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
>> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and
>> secretary,
>> and CC=B9d to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may be sent
>> privately to only the WG chairs.
>> Are you able to review this draft by July 11, 2012 (this is giving you
>>an
>> extra week due to the July 4th holiday)?
>> Thanks, Ross
>> (as MPLS WG chair)
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>_______________________________________________
>
>Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
>recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
>electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>information that may be protected by law;
>they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>delete this message and its attachments.
>As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for
>messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>Thank you.
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>mpls@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls