Subject: [mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:02:21 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you to Tero Kivinen
for doing it)

I had the same reaction as Martin Duke – I found one RFC2119/normative phrase
in the document (Section 5).  I’m not sure if this means it should be
information or normative requirements should be articulated more clearly.

The reviews TSVART and Ben Kaduk already capture my feedback on Sections 6 and
7.

** Section 3.  What is “triggering IPFIX inspection”?  I wasn’t familiar with
this phrasing.  Is the intent to trigger more in-depth analysis of header
information, as opposed to “triggering … DPI”, which will do content inspection?

** Editorial Nits:
-- Section 3.  Typo. s/co-ordinating/coordinating/

-- Section 4.1.  Typo. s/are present/is present/

-- Section 5.  Typo. s/invalidate the certain uses/invalidate certain uses/