Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Stewart,

Looking at the diff from the previous version, I just noticed a typo that I
missed earlier. In the first paragraph of the introduction, "withdrawn"
should be "withdraw". I also see that you added an Oxford comma, which is
fine by me! :-)

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:40 AM Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Stewart,
>
> Glad to be of assistance.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:09 AM Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Andy
>>
>> Thank you for the review.
>>
>> > On 30 Dec 2019, at 19:31, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I’ve been selected as an MPLS-RT reviewer for
>> draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control,
>> > which is currently a candidate for MPLS WG adoption.
>> >
>> > In general I believe that the draft is ready for WG adoption. However,
>> I have a few minor comments which may be addressed either before or after
>> WG adoption.
>> >
>> > 1. The Security Considerations section says "It is assumed that this
>> protocol is run in a well managed MPLS network with strict access controls
>> preventing unwanted parties from generating MPLS OAM packets." While this
>> is true of most (all?) MPLS networks, this assumption should also be stated
>> in the abstract or Introduction as well.
>>
>> I have added a line to the Introduction.
>>
>> I generally work on the assumption that the purpose of the Abstract is to
>> help the potential reader decide if they want to read the document (or more
>> likely to help a search engine match the document against a query) and I am
>> unconvinced as to value of the qualification text in deciding whether to
>> read the rest of the document.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 2. Section 8 contains the line "Force references to appear with mkd
>> [RFC3032] [RFC5036]". However, both references appear elsewhere as well, so
>> this line can be removed.
>>
>> The earlier references are in text that I included as a figure to force
>> the layout style I wanted, and the markdown compiler ignores references in
>> figures. The compiling process excluded unused references so they have to
>> be forced. I have changed the text to
>>
>> RFC Editor please remove this note which is used to force the following
>> references to appear {{RFC3032}} {{RFC5036}}
>>
>> >
>> > 3. I would move "I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework" to the Normative
>> References, as understanding it is necessary to understand this draft.
>> >
>>
>> The framework is informational and so the reference would become a
>> down-ref. I will leave it to the chairs and ADs on how they want to proceed
>> with this. It is not unusual for a framework to be required reading and yet
>> informational.
>>
>>
>> > 4. The text in Section 2 is out of date. The current wording is:
>> >
>> > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
>> [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
>> shown here.
>> >
>> > RFC 8174 should also be added as a normative reference.
>>
>> Done
>>
>> >
>> > 5. When this draft was last updated, Stewart included the following in
>> an email message to the MPLS WG:
>> >
>> > "Next to do is authors of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control to check that
>> > this is suitable to be called by another protocol to act on its behalf.
>> > When we are satisfied that that is that case and any consequentially
>> > necessary amendments have been make to the other drafts we will
>> > request adoption of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control and then WGLC on all
>> > three."
>> >
>> > There's been no follow-up indication that this analysis has occurred,
>> or further revision to the draft. If it has, the authors should indicate as
>> such on the list. If it hasn't, then this will serve as a reminder to the
>> authors.
>>
>>
>> George and I discussed this and concluded that the design was
>> satisfactory.
>>
>> I certainly indicated this to the chairs but I cannot remember if I
>> posted that to the list. If any reader of this note (which will go to the
>> MPLS list) has any technical concerns WRT this point, please raise them and
>> we will work with you to address the issue.
>>
>> New version (05) has been uploaded.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andy
>> >
>>
>>