Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-15

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:40:31 -0600

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-ldp-ipv6-15
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-04-2015
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Feb-05-2015

This document is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 1

Minor: 1
1/ In Section 3, it appears that the second paragraph ("This rule ...
  updated rule:") is modifying rfc5036 to use the new text given
  below the quoted paragraph.

  However, I am not sure whether this is normative update or simply
  a suggestion.  In the second paragraph, the authors write that,
  "Hence, it is reasonable to say ..."  What does "reasonable" mean?
  Does it mean that rfc5036 is updated authoritatively with the
  suggested text or simply that rfc5036 text need not be updated but
  the text in this draft should be considered.

Nits:
1/ I am not sure what portions of this draft update rfc6720...
  Perhaps item (8) in Section 1, but am not sure.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:06:14 +0800

Many thanks for your review. Authors, any thoughts on the comments below?

Jari

On 05 Feb 2015, at 03:40, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:00:08 +0000

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for your review.

1) Minor: Good catch. It is indeed a normative update. I have updated the
text.

FROM://Hence, it is reasonable to say IPv4 or IPv6 address instead of /32
or /128 addresses as shown below in the updated rule://

TO: //Hence, that rule is updated to use IPv4 or IPv6 address instead of
/32 or /128 addresses as shown below://

2) Nit: Item 8 in section 1 as well as section 9 already mention RFC6720.

-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv Asati
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 10:06 AM
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
General Area Review Team <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-15
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>, Rajiv Papneja
<[email-masked]>, Rajiv Asati <[email-masked]>, Vishwas Manral
<[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:06:33 +0000