I see some difficulties with the references in this I-D. a) The security section of this I-D says see [I-D.ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework] which is an informative reference. I believe that security should be normative, not informative, even in this, a requirements (as opposed to a protocol) draft. b) The terminology section of this draft overlaps with that in an Informational Reference [I-D.helvoort-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone] "A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in MPLS-TP drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations." (now republished as a Working Group Draft) which will doubtless progress to an RFC but as Informational. I see this as problematic; the two may be in step now but I am doubtful that they will be as and when this last gets amended in the course of its development. The mpls-tp list has seen some vigorous debate already about the meaning of terms (eg associated bidirectional, AIS). Sometimes, the same concept has a different term in IETF versus ITU-T (versus IEEE) while the same term may also be used for a different concept. RFC4397 is the product of a similar, earlier issue and is another potential overlap. The definitions in this I-D may be normative for this I-D but if they diverge from definitions in other I-Ds, we are storing up problems for the future. On balance, I believe that this rosetta-stone should be a Normative Reference, ideally removing the overlapping definitions. Tom Petch Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <mpls@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:31 PM Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements (MPLS-TP Requirements) toProposed Standard > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > > - 'MPLS-TP Requirements ' > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2009-07-16. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18021&rf c_flag=0 > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf