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

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 02:34:14 -0700

Éric Vyncke 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 the work put into this document.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 1 --
I agree with other IESG review: this section could be expanded a little.
Section 3 is the real introduction ;-)

-- Section 3 --
"also causes an agreed action", when there is an agreement, there are usual
parties agreeing together. It is a little unclear what are those parties here ?
Also, I am not sure whether the 'action' is really agreed upon; i.e., one
router could use a SFL to get more QoS but the routers on the path with use
this SFL to also do IPFIX or DPI...

For the sake of curiosity, I would have welcome some more words about how an PE
router selects to use SFL or the 'normal' label: deep packet inspection ? or
based on the ingress interface or ? (I may be completely wrong with this
question)