Skip to main content

Special-Purpose Label Terminology
RFC 9017

Yes

(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
Erik Kline
Martin Duke
Éric Vyncke
(Barry Leiba)
(Magnus Westerlund)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana
No Objection
Erik Kline
No Objection
Martin Duke
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2021-01-18 for -05)
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.
Robert Wilton
No Objection
Comment (2021-01-17 for -05)
Only a minor editorial comment: I was surprised to see "name space" used instead of "namespace".
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2021-01-19 for -05)
Thank you to Samuel Weiler for the SECDIR review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2021-01-20 for -05)
Thanks to Joel for the OpsDir review - as usual, it was really helpful.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05)

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2021-01-18 for -05)
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.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)