Re: [mpls] please review and comment on draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-00

Hi Loa,

I guess all authors should review their own work!

Idnits says...

> -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3032, but the
>     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
>
> -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7274, but the
>     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

The Abstract also has notes that we should now remove. So...

OLD
   This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
   when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

   Note: The rest of the text in this section is not really part of the
   abstract even though the text is placed here.  It is working notes.

   Note: At least at the moment it is not the intention to take this
   document to an RFC, but it might be polled to become a wg document to
   see if the MPLS working group agree on the proposed terminology.

   Note: The changes we propose are minor, but we might have to progress
   the document to RFC since there is a proposed change to the "Special-
   Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values" registry.
NEW
   This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
   when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

   This document updates RFC 3032 and RFC 7274 by clarifying and refining
   The terminology that those documents define.  It does not make any
   Changes to on-wire formats or the behaviour of implementations.
END

---

Section 1

OLD
   RFC 7274 [RFC7274] made some changes to the terminology used for MPLS
   Special Purpose Labels, but did not define consistent terminology.
NEW
   RFC 7274 [RFC7274] made some changes to the terminology used for MPLS
   Special Purpose Labels, labels 0-15 as originally defined in RFC 3032
[RFC3032],
   but did not define consistent terminology.
END

---

Section 1

OLD
   One thing that RFC 7274 did was to deprecate use use of the term
   "reserved labels"
NEW
   One thing that RFC 7274 did was to deprecate use of the term
   "reserved labels" [RFC3032]
END

---

Section 1

OLD
   At the time of posting this Internet-Draft, the IETF is in the
   process of allocating the very first SPLs from the Extended SPL range
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc].  
NEW
   The first SPL from the Extended SPL range was allocated for
   RFC 8595 [RFC8595].
END

---

Section 1 Add a final paragraph...

   This document updates RFC 3032 and RFC 7274 by clarifying and refining
   The terminology that those documents define.  It does not make any
   Changes to on-wire formats or the behaviour of implementations.

---

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: 15 July 2019 08:05
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] please review and comment on
draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-00

Folks,

About a week ago we posted the first working group version of
draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology.

Please read and comment. Please send comments to the mpls wg mailing
list.

The authors think that the draft is stable and plan to request wglc
after the f2f meeting in Montreal.

/Loa
fior the co-authors
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls