Ballot for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
I'm tempted to DISCUSS this, but for now I'll just ask it: Can an IANA registry be a normative reference? There are three here.
Thank you to Samuel Weiler for the SECDIR review.
Thanks to Joel for the OpsDir review - as usual, it was really helpful.
A nice solid and well-written document; thanks. Just nit-level quibbles from me... Section 3 What is the expansion of the "cSPL" term used in Figure 2? It does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the prose. Section 5 The document describes the terminology to be used when describing and specifying the use of SPLs. It does not effect the forwarding in the MPLS data plane, [...] (nit) I think we want "affect" with an "a" (though the statement is arguably more true with the "e" version; keep reading). Also, my instinctive response to absolute statements like "does not affect" is to seek even the smallest of counterexamples; we do seem to (in Section 4) now mandate that processing XL followed by 7 at the top of the stack be "drop the packet", and it was not fully clear to me whether that was specifically mandated in the RFC 7274 procedures (or even whether there is something useful to do with such a packet other than "drop" in the first place). Section 6 IANA is requested to change the name of the registry that today is called "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" is changed to "Base Special- Purpose MPLS Label Values". (nit) The "requested to change [...] is changed to" seems wonky, but this has to get rewritten by the RFC Editor anyway once IANA has made the change, so it may not be worth messing with now.
Only a minor editorial comment: I was surprised to see "name space" used instead of "namespace".