Hi Mirja,
please see inline:
On 03/12/18 15:42 , Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-19: 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-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor comments:
1) In intro: "...while an adjacency segment, in
most cases, is a one-hop path."
Is that true, that in _most_ cases it is one hop?
the text is referring to adjacency segment, which is local and only
programmed on the node where the adjacency exists and its path is
representing the path to the adjacent neighbor. This is contrary to
prefix segment, which is global and programmed on all routers, so can
represent a multi-hop path.
I though SR makes most sense
in order to specify routers/hops that need to be visited, not matter how many
hops are in between.
2) The contributor section has the following statement:
"The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content
of this document and should be considered as co-authors:"
Should this section then not be called "Authors" instead?
we had too many authors and Alvaro suggested we move them to
Contributors section.
thanks,
Peter
.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
