Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 11 August 2020 13:46 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 E23D03A1089; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 G9HcXausIvrG; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 98C023A1087; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 07BDkaZE012061; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:46:36 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5B62203A; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:46:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA8C22032; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:46:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (54.151.51.84.dyn.plus.net [84.51.151.54] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 07BDkZvH010221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:46:35 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>, 'Eric Gray' <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, rtg-ads@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology.all@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
References: <MN2PR15MB31031AF698C6F7314DF482E097440@MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <366be63f-7bc3-39a6-a2a2-de2d974982a5@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <366be63f-7bc3-39a6-a2a2-de2d974982a5@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:46:35 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <025601d66fe5$d5116810$7f343830$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQEvOBGWSY2sEmgikhIux25CNDYpEQNcm9bOqmZ1IpA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.51.151.54
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25596.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.841-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.841-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25596.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.841000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oHOSwQSJZWiWfDtBOz4q22mpWpGzPzJdaMmm586o4gArxUs8Nw/2fqPV muMtM5/P6E/K3ZLw6Ot4PINjWqZQI5XMTFDP5/eR9Ib/6w+1lWQX2zxRNhh61fSeWrzHd3sw6wq oaQMqD5gkDzmT2ewiDNUNXIpK0p5GbEnCWRo9sMUZSUX8zcPGn2+BGx/i/2QIlzy6qhJBbZYVkI iStmXDO6x0//46ZvmRnZdrew+UsH3d1NCoPjClIszWN98iBBeGrVkZQpHRiCyGe/6YURuOGUzx/ K/vA0NE1e1Y2Bbm0DCxJZlbR4Xa9gMwOZUXOlJ4hUy0TABax1wxRS4RlA/AFgd2elVmK++cGgrC tJAREvHfKkJAC3+xQKxHJeEoNO0YX+CKCNiYWQ3x5KZMlKYS/X5Lmbb/xUuaD69TrbCmLXbTI48 G/UH1drFxqpomFFbrYcj+PexldWw+hHFoYb8XGDc3SMXEPRpDfS0Ip2eEHnwa2S8rkvtFcbDszp 3K5gqDjoczmuoPCq0GpZtYNkunS3OFECWyH26/gPB+SkYIrC0c6yyvoA+ja4vpDT9VDZs+Qwymt xuJ6y0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/lskLdIkVUhAe3v9PtJRAob_Kauk>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:46:42 -0000
So I understand Eric's point about updates of updates. We're updating 7274, and 7274 updated <insert long list here>, so surely we are updating <long list> as well. What Loa says is that we are not updating the bit of 7274 that updated <long list>. He's right about that, but it is maybe not such a strong point. After all, someone directed from <member of list> to read 7274 might miss the wider material. But I think that historically (Deborah to confirm) "updates" is only used for direct updating. That is, the reader is expected to walk through the chain of documents by finding "<member of list> is updated by 7274" and also finding "7274 is updated by [This.I-D]". (This might all be different if we were obsoleting 7274, but we're not 😊) A -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sent: 11 August 2020 11:41 To: Eric Gray <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; rtg-ads@ietf.org Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology.all@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt Eric, Tnx for comments, very useful. I will await instructions from Deborah and the post an updated version. Most of your are straightforward and will be updated as you suggest. Two small comments below. On 11/08/2020 00:53, Eric Gray wrote: The duplication of RFC 3202 is a typo. As what update what in: > Note: I am not sure, but this may be more than a Nit - if, for instance, the intention was to list a different RFC. The paragraph claims the draft updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032 - but RFC 7274 claims to update RFC 3038, RFC 3209, RFC 3811, RFC 4182, RFC 4928, RFC 5331, RFC 5586, RFC 5921, RFC 5960, RFC 6391, RFC 6478, and RFC 6790 as well. What RFC 7274 does to the listed RFCs is to rename them from "Resereved Labels" to "Special Purpose Labels" The terminology draft aligns with this. First bullet in in Section 3 says: o Collectively, the two ranges are known as Special Purpose Labels (SPL). The changes in this draft and RFC 7274 are not overlapping. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpl… Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf… Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [mpls] [RTG-DIR] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of … Loa Andersson