Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-05

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:41:41 +0200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014-2-24

IETF LC End Date: 2014-3-3

IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.  In section 3.2 (a):  I noticed that the policy to update the registry
according  to section 5 is standard action so it should be the same here
since this is an update to the registry.

Nits/editorial comments:

1.	In section 3 last sentence "This answer to this" should be "The .."
2.	In section 3.2 item c you have "for for"

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:54:51 -0000

Hi Roni,

Thanks for taking the time.

> 1. In section 3.2 (a):  I noticed that the policy to update the registry
according
>  to section 5 is standard action so it should be the same here since this is
an
> update to the registry.

Hmmm, but I don't think so.
Section 5 (and the existing registry) define the procedures to be used for
assigning new values from a namespace per 5226. Procedures for
retiring/deprecating values are rarely, if ever, documented and do not need to
follow the same rules as are used for assignments.

That said, I think I can see some value in symmetry. but it seems a bit OTT to
have a Standards Track RFC saying "this code point is not used". What is certain
(and we appear to agree on this) is that IETF consensus is needed (presumably as
tested by IETF last call on the relevant I-D).

Since we disagree, but my disagreement is not too strong, I will be guided by
the IESG (and specifically our sponsoring AD) as to whether to change:
OLD
       An RFC with at
       least Informational status is required.
NEW
      A Standards 
      Track RFC is required.
END

> Nits/editorial comments:
> 1. In section 3 last sentence “This answer to this” should be “The ..”

Ack

> 2. In section 3.2 item c you have “for for”

Ack

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:36:40 +0200

Hi Adrian,
I do not have a strong position on this topic ( I can agree that deprecating
a code point is a rare case) , I was wondering why the difference and I can
agree with any direction that you will choose about the maturity level
needed
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 24 February, 2014 1:55 PM
> To: 'Roni Even'; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-05
> (and we appear to agree on this) is that IETF consensus is needed
(presumably
> as tested by IETF last call on the relevant I-D).
>