IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Wed, 28 June 2017 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A7C129B31; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xE4Mb2VBjARL; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 789A6129B2D; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v5SFZb7R033617; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:41:49 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2bcf03gp74-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:41:49 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5SFflfo003895; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:41:48 -0400
Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5SFfZNT003656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:41:41 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.146]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:41:28 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.17]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.146]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:41:27 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart@g3ysx.org.uk>, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02
Thread-Index: AQHS74QoAMssEuxBKEqx1Vhwwt6bDqI6ftSAgAAJE4D//+Ft0A==
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:41:27 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C85DF33669@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <149859539754.31085.2059230421371020521@ietfa.amsl.com> <3c405108-c18f-8f1b-b9e7-25d08157e1ee@juniper.net> <4f25a6b2-a912-ce02-819c-73c3b4ba9ced@g3ysx.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4f25a6b2-a912-ce02-819c-73c3b4ba9ced@g3ysx.org.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.232]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-28_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706280253
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/lCSK4mUybsvRwY1yYJmbYCkmmi8>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:41:54 -0000

Hi Stewart, Eric,

Much thanks Stewart for the careful review!

I think the high level summary in the Introduction is ok. I would of made the intro sentence a bit stronger to say this document obsoletes it vs. "essentially obsoletes" but that's a preference of style and I don't think we need to respin the document at this time. I'm sure we will have more comments later and can decide to stronger clarify with the next respin.

I'll start the Last Call-
Deborah


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart@g3ysx.org.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 9:25 AM
> To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>; rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/06/2017 13:52, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> > On 6/27/2017 4:29 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> >> In the introduction it says: "In [RFC3107], this feature was
> >> controlled by a
> >> BGP Capability Code that has never been implemented, and is now
> >> essentially
> >> obsolete." which left me wondering whether there was the intention to
> >> formally
> >> deprecate the feature through the RFC system.
> >
> > The IANA consideration section of this document requests that the
> > "multiple routes to a destination" capability code be marked as
> > deprecated, with a reference to this document.  Isn't that sufficient?
> >
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Sorry I missed that.
> 
> I am not sure if the same protocol applies to IANA codepoints as RFCs,
> but if you were obsoleting an RFC it would need to be noted in the
> abstract and the introduction.
> 
> If you do a respin it might be better to note the deprecation near the
> text on obsolescence, since people tend to read the main text and not
> the IANA section. However at the end of the day it is up to the AD how
> they want to handle this.
> 
> - Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email