Barry - Thanx for the review. Response inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:30 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Christian Hopps > <[email protected]>; Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- > extensions-24: (with COMMENT) > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: 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-isis-segment-routing-extensions/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > — Section 4.4 — > As you’re defining a new Expert Review registry, it would help to include > some > brief guidance for the designated expert (see RFC 8126). > [Les:] In this case this is easier said than done. Exactly what other functions might be appropriately supported by sub-TLVs in these TLVs is unclear at this time. Earlier versions of the draft had a number of Explicit Routable Objects (ERO) - but over the course of the development of the SR technology these proved to be not implemented by anyone so they were removed. What a future use case might be cannot be predicted. Folks who propose extensions will have to define why these TLVs are the appropriate place for a new sub-TLV and the WG and Designated Experts will have to use their good judgment to evaluate the request. So other than some vague words I really don't know what to say. WE could say "follow the guidelines in RFC 8126" - but that seems implicit. Les _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
