Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Chris,

see below.

> Am 07.11.2017 um 01:14 schrieb Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>:
> 
> Mirja,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.  Responses are inline with [CB].
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:37 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: 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-ldp-mrt/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1) I was just wondering if it was considered to just use one flag of the reserved field of the multi-topology extension in RFC7307 to advertise MRT support, given that MT must always advertised as well...?
> 
> [CB]  I don't really understand the suggestion.  The document is requesting three values from the MPLS Multi-Topology Identifiers Registry (defined in RFC 7307). I think that we need all three, MRT-Red, MRT-Blue, and Rainbow MRT, for the protocol to work.  The registry has 64k possible values (with 4k being most useful), of which only 6 are currently used.

I was thinking just about the MRT Capability Advertisement (use a flag instead of a new TLV Type, namely TBD-MRT-LDP-1). However this is not important...

> 
> Or are you referring to the request for a value from the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry "TLV Type Name Space"?
> 
> 2) Why would a node withdraw the MRT capability/ when would it send a MRT advertisement with S=0?
> 
> [CB]  As an example, a configuration change on the node to no longer participate in label distribution for MRT would generally result in a withdrawal of the MRT capability, which is done by setting S=0.  The document currently has a  reference to RFC 5661 "LDP Capabilities" for more information on this.  Do you think more text is needed in the document to clarify this?

Not necessarily. But it always helps to be rather explicit than implicit. It might be good to note that this is send based on things like config changes and not based on state changes that are happening during usual operation. However, maybe this is more obvious to people who are more expert than I am.

Mirja

> 
> 3) If you update the document, please also see the gen-art review: there are many small nits which will probably also be caught by the RFC editor but if you can fix them now, that's even better!
> 
> [CB]  Thanks.  I did that in a separate response.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls