Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: 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-spring-segment-routing/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive Comments: - I support Alissa's discuss and Adam's major comment. - Requirements Language: There are lower case instances of 2119 keywords. Unless you mean for those to also be normative, please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174. -3.1.1, last paragraph: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? -12.2: The citations to the following references seem to be used normatively: I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions Editorial Comments and Nits: -1, 2nd paragraph: s/"referred by"/"referred to by" -2, definition of "Active Segment" : "The segment that MUST be used..." The MUST seems like a statement of fact. (If that is actually intended to define a requirement, please state it more directly.) -8, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: s/on/to -8.2, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: s/on/to _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
