OK, that makes sense (and it's a non-blocking comment anyway). It's just always good to think of a time a few years from now when someone might be appointed as DE who wasn't involved with the development of the document, and see if there's something that ought to be recorded here to help. If you've thought about it and there's nothing, that's OK.
Thanks for considering it. Barry On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:01 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
