Re: [mpls] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: (with COMMENT)

[Santosh Esale <[e-mail]>]

Warren, 
Thanks for the review and comments. Answers inline.


On 6/21/17, 8:59 AM, "Warren Kumari" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-08: No Objection
>
>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:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1: Does this document really need 6 front page authors?
The latest version has 5 authors on the front page.
>
>2: The shepherd writeup says: "We are aware of several intentions to
>implement
>this secification. An implementation poll has been sent to the working
>group
>and as further information is received, the write-up will be updated." --
>was
>any further info received?
I would let Loa answer it.
>
>3: The shepherd writeup also says: "There is one small issue that I'm
>currently
>clearing with IANA." -- is this the value of the status code E bit? Or
>some
>other issue?
AFAIK, it is the value of the status code E bit.
>
>Nits:
>1: There are are a number of unexpanded acronyms -- e.g: LSP is no "well
>known"
>- https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
Updated.
>
>2: Sec 1  Introduction
>"LDP uses extended discovery mechanism to establish..." - "LDP uses *the*
>extended discovery mechanism" (or discovery *mechanisms*)
Its the former. Updated.

>3: Sec 1  Introduction
> "An LSR initiates extended discovery... " - "A LSR..." ("An Label Switch"
> wouldn't make much sense)
Updated.

>4: Sec 1  Introduction
>"In addition, since the session is initiated and established after
>adjacency
>formation, the responding LSR has no targeted applications information to
>choose the targeted application" - "has no targeted applications
>information
>available to choose which targeted application".
Updated.
>
>5: Sec 1  Introduction
>"Also, targeted LDP application is mapped .." - "Also, the targeted LDP
>application is mapped"
Updated.
>
>6: Sec 1.2 Terminology
>"This document uses terminology discussed in [RFC7473] along with others
>defined in this document." feels clumsy. How about: "In addition to the
>terminology defined in [RFC7473], this document uses the following terms:
>"
Updated.
>
>7: Sec 2.1 Encoding
>"An LSR MAY advertise that it is capable to negotiate a targeted LDP ..."
>- "An
>LSR MAY advertise that it is capable of negotiating a targeted LDP ..."
Updated.
>

Santosh (on behalf of Authors)
>