[Teas] progressing draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Authors (WG),
    I'm the shepherd for this document.  I was hoping to put in the
publication request for this document today as it would have been nice
to have a publication request in 2014! Unfortunately, I see some
comments that were not addressed from before the LC.  In particular,
from the thread starting with
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/threads.html :

>From: Dongjie (Jimmy):
>...
>>From: Lou Berger
>...
>> WRT section 2.1.  Extensions for Lock Instruct:
>> - What extension is defined in this subsection.  What do you think about
>> replacing section 2.1 with something along the lines of?
>> 
>>   2.1. Lock Instruct Indication
>> 
>>    In order to indicate the lock/unlock of the LSP, the A
>>    (Administratively down) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object [RFC3471]
>>    [RFC3473] is used.
>> 
> 
> Agree with your suggestion. This could make section 2.1 much clearer.

I think this means that the object format and bit definitions are to be
removed.

>>> Where is the Loopback (B) bit / Attribute Flag defined? This
document, right?
...
>> This said, you still need to mention where it is defined (e.g., in
section 3.1, add
>> "defined above" the first time you mention the bit) and add it to the
IANA
>> section.
>Will fix this in the new revision.

You still use "(B)" in Section 3.2, but nowhere else. Please replace all
instances of "Loopback (B) bit" and "Loopback flag" with "Loopback
Attribute Flag".

Finally, WRT the discussion on 2119 language, there is also one more
"SHOULD" I have a question about:
   When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
   messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set.

Why isn't this a "MUST"?

That's it, please let us/me know when to expect the next revision.

Thank you,
Lou