Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-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-ldp-interop/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I might have missed something; and note that this is offered as an observation, and is explicitly not a blocking comment: this document appears to offer operational advice for co-existence of LDP and SR, and for transitioning from LDP to SR in an incremental fashion. I don't see any protocol specification in here. Based on these observations, it is my opinion that the contents of this document seem better suited for publication as a BCP rather than a standards track document. For example: if one were to eventually progress this document to an Internet Standard, what "implementations" would one use to evaluate the criteria in section 2.2 of RFC 6140? If we can't answer that question, I think it's a pretty clear indication that the document isn't standards track. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- General: This document uses IPv4 addresses for example purposes in many places. Please convert these to IPv6 or a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. See https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2016-2/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for additional information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses non-normative, lowercased versions of these words in several locations. Please update this section to match the boilerplate in RFC 8174. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ยง3.1.1: > A SR node having LDP neighbors MUST create LDP bindings for each > Prefix-SID learned in the SR domain by treating SR learned labels as > if they were learned through an LDP neighbot. Nit: "...neighbor." _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
