Hi Roni, Thanks for reviewing the draft. Actually, your interpretation is correct. We will update "must" to uppercase in the next version (-08), where we plan to address all the comments from the directorate review.
Thanks again on behalf of the co-authors. Best regards Paolo -----Original Message----- From: Roni Even via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 19:46 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ietf last call Genart review Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth Title: Benchmarking Methodology for Segment Routing (SR) Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2026-07-27 IETF LC End Date: 2026-08-03 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is ready for publication as an informational RFC I have one nit Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: In section 2.3 end of paragraph 4 “ therefore the outgoing interface(s) must support the increased frame size due to the creation of the SRH and outer IPv6 attachment”. Should it be MUST and not must? _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
