[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-14

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

I agree.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

On 24 May 2024, at 17:15, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]> wrote:


Andrew,

Thanks for your review.

I think that choice was made for the MPLS-TP requirements documents because external bodies needed them to be standards track to reference them in a normative manner.

I am not sure that is the case for the MNA requirements. This draft is really intended to drive the development of standard solutions in the IETF, in the form of standards track protocol specs. This draft is not intended to be a standard to which implementations are expected to conform or claim compliance to.

I agree it contains a lot of normative language, but there is plenty of precedent for informational requirements documents to be written this way e.g.,  RFC8394.

Regards

Matthew

From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 24 May 2024 at 10:55
To: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-14

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Andrew,

We had the discussion on whether to make requirement documents
"standards track" or "informational" back in MPLS-TP days.

The IESG started to say the "requirements" are supporting documents
and should be informational.

The working group wanted to make (almost all) MPLS-TP requirement
documents "standards track". I think it boiled down to an understanding
that the decision to make it standards track or informational could
be take on a per document basis.

We made at least three of the MPLS-TP requirement document standards
track, RFC 5951, RFC 5860, and  RFC 5654.

So there is running code support your proposal to make the
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements a standards track document.

I would support that.

/Loa


Den 2024-05-24 kl. 09:33, skrev Andrew Alston via Datatracker:
> Reviewer: Andrew Alston
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/
>
> While this was originally specified as an early review, following conversations
> with the relevant AD, I have treated this as a last call review.
>
> Reviewer: Andrew Alston
> Review Date: 24/05/2024
> Intended Status: Informational (See comments section)
>
> Summary:
>
> No issues found, the document is ready to proceed to the IESG - with an
> important caveat as mentioned below.
>
> Comments:
>
> I found the document to be well written and easy to understand, and well as
> being comprehensive in nature. I have concerns however about the intended
> status of this document.  Has the working group considered making this document
> standards track rather than informational. My rationale for asking this
> question is founded in the amount of normative language in the document.  This
> document will obviously feed into other standards track future documents, that
> MUST conform to what this document lays out, as such, this document almost
> becomes a standards document by which other standards are to be authored - and
> is far more than just an informational document.  It is rare to see a document
> with this amount of normative language in an informational context, as such, at
> minimum, I believe that if this discussion has not happened on the mailing
> list, it should occur and there needs to be a fairly comprehensive writeup in
> the shepards review as to a justification of track.
>
> Beyond that, thank you for the document - as stated I found it well written and
> clear.
>
>
>