Hi Acee,
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: 20 May 2021 11:28
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; aretana.i...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
> extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 5/20/21, 5:11 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker"
> wrote:
>
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this document.
>
> In various places, this document references lists of numerical
> algorithm
> numbers, or TLV Ids without any associated human names. I would have
> found
> this document to be a bit more readable if the names of the algorithms
> and TLVs
> were also used alongside their numerical ids.
>
> You mean like OSPF __? For better or worse, IS-IS has always referred to
> TLVs by their numeric code point.
[RW]
Ah, you can see that I haven't read many IS-IS specs. If the convention is to
always refer to them by their code points then that is fine, I just find the
doc harder to read/understand.
Thanks,
Rob
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
