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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Your responses resolve all of my comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jun 23, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Santosh Esale <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Ben, Please see inline for answers.
> 
> 
> On 6/22/17, 7:48 AM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Ben Campbell 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> (I cleared my discuss. Alexey pointed out that the registration policies
>> for
>> unassigned ranges are explicitly mentioned in the table itself.
>> Apologies, I
>> missed that.)
>> 
>> -General:  When you use the word "application", is a person skilled in
>> MPLS
>> automatically going to think in terms of the sort of "applications" listed
>> here? If not, it would be good to have a paragraph early in the
>> introduction
>> that describes what you mean by "applications". As an application-layer
>> person,
>> I tend to think of it in terms of application-layer applications. Am I
>> correct
>> to assume that it would not make sense to register, for example, HTTP in
>> the
>> the LDP Targeted Application Identifier registry?
> Correct. 
> Also added the following definition of application to first paragraph -
> Targeted 
> LDP application is an application that uses tLDP session to exchange
> information 
> such as FEC-Label bindings with a peer LSR in the network.
> 
> 
>> 
>> - 1.1: I noticed a number instances of at least "may" in lower case. If
>> your
>> intent is that lower case words not be treated as keywords, please
>> consider
>> using the new boilerplate from RFC 8174
> 
> Updated.
> 
>> 
>> Nits:
>> 
>> -1, first paragraph: "LDP uses extended discovery mechanism..."
>> Missing article before "discovery".
> 
> Updated.
>> 
>> -2.2, paragraph 4 and 5, "... a maximum value, as 0xffff.": should "as" be
>> "such as"?
> 
> Yes. Updated.
> 
>> 
>> -2.2, paragraphs 6 and 7: the "it" in the opening sentence of each
>> paragraph
>> has an unclear antecedent.
> 
> ‘it’ was referring to an antecedent from the previous paragraph.
> Can ‘it' jump over to refer to the noun in the previous paragraph ? :)
> Updated to replace ‘it’ with the ‘noun’ .
>> 
> Thanks,
> Santosh on behalf of Authors
>