Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-11
Reviewer: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Review Date: 29 October 2024
IETF LC End Date: 11 November 2024
Intended Status: Informational
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
Comments:
This appears to me to be a well written, high quality draft. My comments below are mostly wording quibbles. It is a draft targeted to become an Informational RFC specifying the architectural framework for MPLS Network Actions.
Major Issues:
Nits:
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-11
Reviewer: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Review Date: 29 October 2024
IETF LC End Date: 11 November 2024
Intended Status: Informational
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
Comments:
This appears to me to be a well written, high quality draft. My comments below are mostly wording quibbles. It is a draft targeted to become an Informational RFC specifying the architectural framework for MPLS Network Actions.
Major Issues:
No major issues found.
Minor Issues:
These are all very minor issues:
Minor Issues:
These are all very minor issues:
Section 2.1 says "... this framework does not place any limitations on an MNA solution." seems a little too strong. If this is just in the context of scope combinations from the earlier part of that sentence, suggest saying "... this framework does not limit the combinations in an MNA solution."
Section 2.2 says "Other alternatives may also be possible and should be specified by the solution." which could be misinterpreted to imply that a solution should specify some other alternative. Suggest replacing with "Other alternatives may also be possible. The solution should specify the alternative adopted." or the like.
Section 2.3 final one sentence paragraph has too many "it"s in it for my taste. Is this just saying that a node that does not support MNA does not make use of MNA?
Section 7, 2nd paragraph: I think the second sentence needs a little more qualification. Perhaps change to "... prevents link traffic observation covertly acquiring the label stack ..."
Nits:
Section 5 first line, it is not the actions that must contain the items in the list but the document, so replace "and" with "that" or the like.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
