Re: [mpls] Extended Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06

Hi,

Please find my comments related to WGLC, that should be addressed before we
send the I-D out to our AD.

## Minor
* Section 1, Figure 1 has 3 ASes, but the text says "For example Figure 1
describes an inter-AS network scenario consisting of ASes AS1 and AS2."
* You should add a reference to how EPE SIDs are handled, as your examples
use them. Any issue adding text and reference to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/?
* Section 4.4, Does this needs an IANA registry to allow easy allocation of
new flags in future.
* Section 6.2; avoid using MUST when you are restating a rule already
defined in other RFCs, please use them when it is specific to the new
procedure defined in this I-D only.
* Section 8.1, "It is recommended..", why not RECOMMENDED?
* Section 9, "the network devices MUST have mechanisms to prevent of
Denial-of-service attacks"; needs a reference to those mechanisms - maybe
RFC8209?
* Section 10, Please expand IANA consideration, provide clear
identification for registries and the action that IANA is supposed to make.
Currently you only have a list and it is left to the reader/IANA to figure
it out. Also please change TBD to TBD1,TBD2,TBD3 as used in Section 4.
    * Also, The correct range should be 32768-49161 for Standards Action!
* Suggest to follow the RFC7942 template for section 12.1

## Nits
* Expand PMS, SR in the title
* Expand the following on first use
    * AS
    * LSP
    * EPE
    * ABR
    * ASBR
    * TC
    * MBZ
    * CLI
* There are many many grammar errors. Please run the text via a grammar
check such as Grammarly.
* Section 9, "across multiple domains or multiple ASes" -> either just say
"multiple domains" (without AS) or change it to "across multiple IGP
domains or multiple ASes".
* s/MACSEC/MACsec/
* s/evnt/event/

## Past Review
* I did a review at the time of adoption. While some comments were acted
on, others were left out [
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/b9l6awSH1Jp8DLTI4kx95ym894Q/].
Request authors to recheck.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:24 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi working group.
>
> A very disappointing response to both the IPR poll and the working group
> last call.
>
> As far as I can see, just one author and the contributor responded to the
> IPR poll (thanks to them for that).
>
> And no one made any comments one way or the other in the last call despite
> that also being advertised in SPRING.
>
> Additionally, the draft just expired.
>
> The chairs have discussed this and think it is possible that the holiday
> season interfered with everyone's work schedule.
>
> So we are extending the last call until 23rd January (two more weeks).
>
> Please understand that if we don't hear support (preferably with reviews)
> in that time, we will move the document back into the WG from where it will
> only emerge with evidence of renewed support, and even then at the end of
> the queue.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 18 December 2023 20:47
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06
>
> Note well: I have inherited Loa's ability to type WGLC announcements 😉
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 18 December 2023 20:08
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam@ietf.org; 'Carlos Pignataro' <
> cpignata@gmail.com>
> Subject: [mpls] Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06
>
> Hi,
>
> == IPR ==
>
> Draft authors (Shraddha, Kapil, Mukul, Samson, and Nagendra) and
> Contributors (Carlos and Zafar), please respond to this email (on list)
> saying whether or not you are aware of IPR that applies to this document.
> If
> so, please state whether this IPR has already been disclosed in compliance
> with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> Please note that there are two IPR disclosures against the original
> individual I-Ds (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3937/ and
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5234/), but no explicit disclosure has
> been
> made against this document.
>
> If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
> contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
> IPR
> that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
> Mach, as document shepherd, will collate the responses.
>
> == Working Group Last Call ==
>
> This email starts a three week last call ending on 9th January at 9am GMT
> (an extended last call to cover the Festive period).
>
> We solicit all opinions on whether this document is ready to move forward,
> but we are particularly keen to hear reasoned comments with associated
> reviews.
>
> Mach, as document shepherd, will keep track of comments to ensure they are
> addressed.
>
> == Implementation Status ==
>
> While it is not a requirement (and implementations are not required), it is
> very helpful to know the present and planned implementation status of
> documents as they progress to IESG evaluation.
>
> Everyone is encouraged to report any implementation status that they are
> aware of, and the authors are encouraged to add an Implementation Status
> section to the draft per RFC 7942 even if that is just a note that no
> implementations are known at the moment.
>
>
> Many thanks,
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>