Hi Linda,
thank you for your review. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:55 PM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Issues
I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last-call comments.
Summary:
I find the intent of this document somewhat unclear. While the Introduction
states that the purpose is to describe use cases requiring specialized
forwarding hardware, the use cases in Section 2 primarily reference existing
RFCs or drafts on specific topics.
GIM>> I will note that the Introduction doesn't mention the need for "specialized forwarding hardware", but "special processing by forwarding [deployed and developed in the future] hardware":
This document describes use cases that introduce functions that
require special processing by forwarding hardware.
Is this draft intended to serve as a
collection of RFCs or drafts that involve the use of MNA?
GIM>> Yes, that is the intention of the document to describe how MNA enables realization of functions, e.g., IOAM, that are not support based on the existing MPLS architecture.
Given that each
referenced RFC and draft already contains a detailed description of the issues
it addresses, why need another RFC to link them all?
GIM>> AFAICS, that is the decision reached by the MPLS WG.
My two cents,
Linda Dunbar
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
