Subject: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-02.txt

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:41:49 +0200

Working group,

this is to initiate a MPLS working group last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt

The LDP spec has been updated based on operational and implementational
experiences and will requested to be published as a Draft Standard.

The working group last call ends 11.59PM PST on Friday August 26.

The package needed for taking the LDP spec to draft standard also
includes the following two drafts

draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt and
draft-minei-ldp-operational-experience-01.txt

at the same time we ask for working group consensus to make them
working group documents.

/Loa and George

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                            [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:18:42 +0100

Hi,

Thanks to Ina, Bob and Loa for this work.

A random set of nit-like comments...

There are loads of hyphenations which ought really to be fixed.

New text in 2.5.3 says...
             Until the LDP session is established, no other messages
             except those listed in the procedures above may be
             exchanged...
Would it be better to use RFC2119 language? What should an LSR do if it
receives a message?

How about taking the opportunity to tidy up the RFC2119 language?
For example, in section 3.3 we have several uses of "must"

New text in section 3.5.1.1 has "shutdown message." Should be "Shutdown
message."

There are a bunch of normative references that are not actually
referenced. Since these are RFCs, it is not harmful to the processing of
the document by the RFC Ed, but we might consider whether we need them all
to be normative references, or alternatively actually insert the
references into the text.

Do we need to do something specific to deprecate the Host Address FEC in
the IANA registry?

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:41 PM
Subject: [mpls] Working group last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-02.txt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:41 PM
Subject: [mpls] Working group last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-02.txt

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:47:00 +0200

All,

this working group call has ended. We will ask the co-authors
to take care of the comments and publish the survey and experience
drafts as wg documents.

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson