[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Loa, updating Abstract to match the title of MNA Requirements
draft will suffice.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:32 AM Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Tarek,
>
> First, it is not the tradition (or at least not required) in the MPLS WG
> that the author respond to the WGLC, but since other co-authors has
> responded. I support progressing the draft.
>
> To Greg's comment on using RFC XXXX, I'm not in favour of this. Best
> would be to use the correct title, and alternatively use
> [I-D.ietf-mpls.mna-requirements]. Using a link will cause a nits-tool
> error and also inform us when the RFC number is available. We or the RFC
> Editor may change.
>
> /Loa
>
> Den 2024-06-18 kl. 21:09, skrev Greg Mirsky:
> > Hi, Tarek et al.,
> > I read the current version of the draft and found it concise. I
> > support progressing this document to the publication. I have a minor
> > question. As I understand it, in the last paragraph of Abstract,
> > draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/> is
> > referenced by the title:
> >    Some of these
> >    actions are defined in existing MPLS specifications, while others
> >    require extensions to existing specifications to meet the
> >    requirements found in "Requirements for MPLS Network Actions".
> > But the full title of the MNA requirements draft is slightly
> > different, "Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network
> > Actions (MNA)". To avoid a possible confusion and misreference, and
> > since both documents are progressing closely, perhaps the reference
> > could use RFC XXXX format with a note to RFC Editor pointing to
> > yet-to-be-assigned RFC number of MNA Requirements draft.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear WG,
> >
> >     This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for
> >     draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk.
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >     Note, currently there are 2 IPR disclosures against this document
> >     at
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk
> >     <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk
> >
> >
> >     This poll runs until July 5. 2024.
> >
> >     Thank you,
> >
> >     Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> >     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> --
> Loa Andersson
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
>
>