[mpls] Alexey Melnikov's No Record on draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Sun, 18 June 2017 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44606129401; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, mpls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149781950127.10765.7110741007570619355.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:58:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/nmzRJg5fbrIhgU_Mkd6OOU8pRTQ>
Subject: [mpls] Alexey Melnikov's No Record on draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 20:58:21 -0000

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: No Record

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:


I have a small list of issues that I think you should look at:

LSR -- needs expansion in the Abstract, as it is not an abbreviation recognized
by RFC Editor.

In 2.2

  If the receiver LSR does not receive the TAC TLV in the Initialization message
  or it does not understand   the TAC TLV, the TAC negotiation MUST be
  considered unsuccessful and the session establishment MUST proceed as per

Firstly, you can't have requirements on any implementation that doesn't support
this specification. Secondly, the last MUST is already the default. So I think
use of RFC 2119 lange here is not appropriate, you should just use "is
considered" and "proceeds".

The following text:

If it sets the session setup retry interval to maximum, the session MAY stay in
a non-existent state. When this LSR detects a change in the responding LSR
configuration or its own configuration pertaining to TAC TLV, it MUST clear the
session setup back off delay associated with the session in order to re-attempt
the session establishment.

is repeated twice in the same section.

What is "TAI"?

In 5.2: the section is titled "Use Cases", so I didn't expect any normative RFC
2119 language in there. Some MAY seem not to be specifying implementation
choices, so they should be "may".