Subject: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:37:12 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: 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-ldp-mrt/

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

1) I was just wondering if it was considered to just use one flag of the
reserved field of the multi-topology extension in RFC7307 to advertise MRT
support, given that MT must always advertised as well...?

2) Why would a node withdraw the MRT capability/ when would it send a MRT
advertisement with S=0?

3) If you update the document, please also see the gen-art review: there are
many small nits which will probably also be caught by the RFC editor but if you
can fix them now, that's even better!