Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-15
Yes
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Erik Kline
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Jim Guichard
Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-17 for -13)
Sent
(fixing typo) # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-13 # Please find the following non-blocking comments observed when reading the draft. Please use at your discretion #DETAILED COMMENTS #================= ## classified as [minor] and [major] 173 MPLS Fast Reroute [RFC4090], [RFC5286] and [RFC7490] is a useful and 174 widely deployed tool for minimizing packet loss in the case of a link 175 or node failure. [minor] We should add the most advanced flavor of LFA draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-17 in this FRR list. 319 misordering, and allow for fragmentation. In this case, the first 320 nibble the data that immediately follows after the MPLS BoS is set to 321 0000b to identify the presence of PW CW. [minor] the "0000b" threw me off-guard. Maybe better to say "0000 (binary)" to align with formal writing conventions. What about considering a to reference section 2.: " If the first nibble of a PW packet carried over an MPLS PSN has a value of 0, this indicates that the packet starts with a PWMCW." 330 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8296] traffic can also be 331 encapsulated over MPLS. In this case, BIER has defined 0101b as the 332 value for the first nibble in the data that immediately appears after [minor] s/0101b/0101 (binary)/
John Scudder
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-18 for -13)
Sent
Thanks for the well-written document. One note, I agree with Éric Vyncke that it would be good to qualify the last sentence of the abstract, for example with “at time of writing“.
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-18 for -13)
Sent
Some of the things defined in 1.2.1 (e.g., ISD, PSD, AD) are only used once, and maybe those definitions could be dropped and just used directly in place. NAI is defined but never used.
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-17 for -13)
Not sent
Thanks to Yaron Sheffer for the SecDir review and to the authors for picking up his suggestion for the Security Considerations Section.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-16 for -13)
Not sent
Thank you to Vijay Gurbani for the GENART review.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-18 for -13)
Sent
Thanks for the work done in this document, it is clear and easy to read (thanks also to Tony Li for the detailed shepherd's write-up). Two comments though: # Abstract Should a date be added to the sentence `the ones that are actively discussed by members of the IETF MPLS, PALS, and DetNet working groups` ? # Appendix A `The discussion of these aspirational cases is ongoing.` should the WG have delayed the request for publication until these use cases are refined ? Else, suggest removing the appendix. # References As a side note, there are many drafts in the references, let's hope that this I-D is not too much delayed by draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk and that the informal references will still be useful when published.