Skip to main content

Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04

Yes

(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

Éric Vyncke
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Mirja Kühlewind)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2019-08-05 for -02) Sent
** Section 4, per “The figures in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8287] are replaced by the below figures in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively”:

--  none of the diagram in Section 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 are explicitly labeled as figures

-- section 4.3 contains two “figures” (one is called a table in the text and the other has no designation).  Which one of these is supposed to be a replacement for RFC8287 Section 5.3?

** Section 4.3.  Assuming that the second figure is the replacement for RFC8287’s Section 5.3 figure, the length is still confusing to me.  The figure in this draft appears to be a specific instance of the populated Sub-TLV.  The existing figure in RFC8287 appears to be a generic depiction.  The new figure doesn’t appear to be relevant (or presented incorrect information) if Adj Type = 1 and Protocol = 1 (for example).

** Section 4.3.  Typo.  s/Protocol =0/Protocol = 0/

** Section 6. Recommend clarifying that there are no additional security considerations (not that there aren’t any).  s/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any security considerations/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations/
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2019-08-07 for -02) Not sent
Good catch from the Gen-Art review, this needs to be fixed.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -02) Unknown

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Not sent

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2019-08-27) Sent
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Not sent

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Not sent

                            
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2019-08-07 for -02) Sent
Please use the BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174 (the current Section 2
seems to be using the RFC 2119 text, without accounting for errata, and
an extra RFC 8174 reference appended at the end).
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Not sent

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2019-08-08 for -03) Sent
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.