Re: [mpls] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Cool, thanks for addressing / considering my comments.

W
[sent from a phone; apologies for terseness / autocorrect fun....]


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM Santosh Esale <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Warren,
> Thanks for the review and comments. Answers inline.
>
>
> On 6/21/17, 8:59 AM, "Warren Kumari" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> >draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: 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-app-aware-tldp/
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >COMMENT:
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >1: Does this document really need 6 front page authors?
> The latest version has 5 authors on the front page.
> >
> >2: The shepherd writeup says: "We are aware of several intentions to
> >implement
> >this secification. An implementation poll has been sent to the working
> >group
> >and as further information is received, the write-up will be updated." --
> >was
> >any further info received?
> I would let Loa answer it.
> >
> >3: The shepherd writeup also says: "There is one small issue that I'm
> >currently
> >clearing with IANA." -- is this the value of the status code E bit? Or
> >some
> >other issue?
> AFAIK, it is the value of the status code E bit.
> >
> >Nits:
> >1: There are are a number of unexpanded acronyms -- e.g: LSP is no "well
> >known"
> >- https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
> Updated.
> >
> >2: Sec 1  Introduction
> >"LDP uses extended discovery mechanism to establish..." - "LDP uses *the*
> >extended discovery mechanism" (or discovery *mechanisms*)
> Its the former. Updated.
>
> >3: Sec 1  Introduction
> > "An LSR initiates extended discovery... " - "A LSR..." ("An Label Switch"
> > wouldn't make much sense)
> Updated.
>
> >4: Sec 1  Introduction
> >"In addition, since the session is initiated and established after
> >adjacency
> >formation, the responding LSR has no targeted applications information to
> >choose the targeted application" - "has no targeted applications
> >information
> >available to choose which targeted application".
> Updated.
> >
> >5: Sec 1  Introduction
> >"Also, targeted LDP application is mapped .." - "Also, the targeted LDP
> >application is mapped"
> Updated.
> >
> >6: Sec 1.2 Terminology
> >"This document uses terminology discussed in [RFC7473] along with others
> >defined in this document." feels clumsy. How about: "In addition to the
> >terminology defined in [RFC7473], this document uses the following terms:
> >"
> Updated.
> >
> >7: Sec 2.1 Encoding
> >"An LSR MAY advertise that it is capable to negotiate a targeted LDP ..."
> >- "An
> >LSR MAY advertise that it is capable of negotiating a targeted LDP ..."
> Updated.
> >
>
> Santosh (on behalf of Authors)
> >
>
> --
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf