[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Support Adoption! A few comments/nits -

# Comments

- Suggest to not use normative text in Introduction and this could be
better suited to section 2.2. Also that section says "..while it must not
be part of new implementations or deployments", which is different from
SHOULD in the introduction.

- Can you add some description in the IANA table to highlight that the same
PSN values can mean multiple things and thus the context of the protocol is
needed? Or highlight it in some other way...

- What happens incase of an unknown PSN is received? Let's add text pointing
to relevant RFC for completeness.

# Nits

- Suggest changing "This memo, if published, would update RFC 4928." to
"This memo updates RFC 4928 <explanation>". Make a similar change in
Section 1.

- [I-D.ietf-mpls-1stnibble]  should be replaced with 'RFC XXXX' or 'this
document' as appropriate. Also add a RFC editor note to update XXXX with
the RFC number assigned.

- In the NEW TEXT, use of "At the time of this document," is unclear. It
could mean RFC 4928 or [I-D.ietf-mpls-1stnibble], better to be explicit.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 8:35 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
>
>
> There were minimal responses regarding this LC on whether the WG is
> interested in progressing this document to publication.
>
> Chairs have decided to extend this WG LC till Friday June 14th to allow
> for more responses from the WG on whether to support or not progressing
> this document to publication.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tarek (as MPLS WG co-chair)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2024 at 11:53 PM
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble
>
> Dear WG,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble/>.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> This poll runs until June 4, 2024.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>