Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 9:51 PM Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft -
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform
> an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
> IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s
> lifetime
> as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
> stage that the document has reached.
>
> As this review request was marked by the working group chairs as "In prep
> for
> WG last call", my focus for the review was to determine whether the
> document is
> ready to be published. Please consider my comments as if they are early
> last-call comments.
>
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review Date: 13 April 2024
> Intended Status: Informational
>
> ## Summary:
>
>
I missed adding the summary after finishing my review, here it is --

Result: Has Issues!

The document lists the limited set of use cases for MNA. It is clear and
straightforward. It is not explicit on how the various cases listed act as
a usecase or motivation for the MNA. It leaves these things for the
reader's imagination which is not correct for a usecase document. The
document should be looked at with fresh eyes to make it useful as a use
case document.

Thanks!
Dhruv

> ## Major:
>
> - Section 2.x, the listed use-cases lack text that can link them to MNA.
> Basically, how do they act as a use case for MNA? What indication and
> ancillary
> data will be carried? I can imagine how but it makes sense for the
> use-case I-D
> to be explicit about it for the reader.
>
> - Sections 3 and 4 read more as a requirement for the MNA solution and not
> as
> use-cases. Perhaps they could be rephrased?
>
> ## Minor:
>
> - I found the sentence "This document describes cases that introduce
> functions
> that are based on special processing by forwarding hardware." hard to
> parse.
> Consider rephrasing. Why hardware?
>
> - Add references for special-purpose labels and extended special-purpose
> labels.
>
> - We need to list a stronger motivation for MNA than just saving
> special-purpose label space.
>
> - Change RFC XXXX to RFC 9543
>
> - The NRP Policy is not defined in RFC 9543, maybe the better reference is
> draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls?
>
> - Security consideration, while I agree with the text but consider having
> some
> useful pointers to other I-Ds could be useful.
>
> ## Nits:
>
> - Please add MNA in the title of the I-D
>
> - add "working group" at the end of the 2nd sentence in the abstract.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>