Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 14:31:18 -0500

All,

I’ve been selected as an MPLS-RT reviewer for draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control,
which is currently a candidate for MPLS WG adoption.

In general I believe that the draft is ready for WG adoption. However, I
have a few minor comments which may be addressed either before or after WG
adoption.

1. The Security Considerations section says "It is assumed that this
protocol is run in a well managed MPLS network with strict access controls
preventing unwanted parties from generating MPLS OAM packets." While this
is true of most (all?) MPLS networks, this assumption should also be stated
in the abstract or Introduction as well.

2. Section 8 contains the line "Force references to appear with mkd
[RFC3032] [RFC5036]". However, both references appear elsewhere as well, so
this line can be removed.

3. I would move "I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework" to the Normative References,
as understanding it is necessary to understand this draft.

4. The text in Section 2 is out of date. The current wording is:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
shown here.

RFC 8174 should also be added as a normative reference.

5. When this draft was last updated, Stewart included the following in an
email message to the MPLS WG:

"Next to do is authors of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control to check that
this is suitable to be called by another protocol to act on its behalf.
When we are satisfied that that is that case and any consequentially
necessary amendments have been make to the other drafts we will
request adoption of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control and then WGLC on all
three."

There's been no follow-up indication that this analysis has occurred, or
further revision to the draft. If it has, the authors should indicate as
such on the list. If it hasn't, then this will serve as a reminder to the
authors.

Thanks,
Andy