Dear Paul,
Thank you very much. I merged all your input.
PA> 5.4. srhActiveSegmentIPv6 / Additional Information, Changed from RFC8754 to
RFC8402, is that correct? Please say which section of the RFC is relevant.
TG> That is correct. The active section is specified in Section 2 of RFC 8402
and
Thomas,
3. srhSegmentIPv6BasicList
"As specified in Section 2 of [RFC8754]" versus 5.5 / Description, "As
described in Section 2 of [RFC8754]".
3. srhSegmentIPv6ListSection
Remove "Exposes" for consistency with 5.6 / Description.
3. srhSegmentsIPv6Left
"Segment List from th
Dear Paul,
Thanks a lot. I updated section 5.9.1 as you suggested.
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-09.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/d
Thanks Thomas, I will re-review the updated draft later.
PA> 7. Implementation Status, I would put this section in an appendix to avoid
the need to renumber sections 8, 9, and 10 when this is removed.
TG> Good point. I double checked. I am following Section 2 of RFC 7942
(https://datatracker.ie
Dear Paul,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments. With one minor editorial exception,
all are valid and merged in the coming -10 version of the document.
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-
