> On 30 Jun 2020, at 17:55, Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 30 Jun 2020, at 7:24, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>>> On 29 Jun 2020, at 18:30, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>> It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational instead of
>>> Proposed Standard. The shepherd's writeup does not justify it, and in fact the
>>> writeup refers to the document as a "specification", which is exactly what it
>>> appears to be. It defines the use of SFLs, describes how they are processed by
>>> the endpoints, describes how they are aggregated, etc. While the document may
>>> not be standalone, I don't see how it's really an Informational document. I
>>> suggest restarting the Last Call for Proposed, and if for some reason it needs
>>> to be Informational, it can always be downgraded after Last Call.
>>
>> Pete - the “tradition”...
>
> I hear songs from "Fiddler on the Roof" in my head...
>
>> ...in routing is that such documents are Informational and the detailed protocol specifications are standards (there are a couple of those in progress about to finish baking). I leave it up to our AD to pass judgement on the matter as this is a simple fix, but I don’t think the changed status is REQUIRED.
>
> Absolutely agreed that it is not required, but given that this does contain specification, and how much less scrutiny is given to Informational document as against Standards Track (see, for example, the IESG balloting rules on each), Standards Track seems more sensible. But the world remains intact either way.
I await judgement of the IESG on the matter.
>
>>> The Security Considerations section says, "The issue noted in Section 6 is a
>>> security consideration." I'm not sure I understand why that is.
>>
>> Section 6 explains the privacy considerations, and privacy and security are close friends so I cross referenced the section rather than repeating it. I suggest that we wait to see what SECDIR wants to do before changing any text.
Note removed by popular request
>
> Yes, glad to defer to SECDIR on this.
>
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>
>>> Section 1: "(see Section 3)" seems unnecessary.
Removed
>>
>> I can take that out on the next version, it was intended as a forward reference to a completely new contract in MPLS.
>>
>>> Section 3: I thought the "Consider..." construction made those paragraphs
>>> unnecessarily wordy and a bit harder to follow.
>>>
>> I will reword the first two sentences para 2 of section 3 to simplify the language.
As an example application of this technology, let us consider a
pseudowire (PW) {{RFC3985}} on which it is desired to make
packet loss measurement. Two labels, synonymous with the PW labels, are obtained
from the egress terminating provider edge (T-PE). By alternating
between these SFLs and using them in place of the PW label, the PW
packets may be batched for counting without any impact on the PW
forwarding behavior (note that strictly only one SFL is needed in
this application, but that is an optimization that is a matter for
the implementor). The method of obtaining these additional
labels is outside the scope of this text, however,
one control protocol that provides a method of obtaining SFLs is described in
{{I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control}}.
Best regards
Stewart
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
