Hi Linda, Please see inline.
Thanks, Pablo. From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 17 August 2018 at 00:42 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Clarence Filsfils <[email protected]> Subject: some comments to draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-05 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Friday, 17 August 2018 at 00:42 Clarence, et al, Does your draft cover the scenario of a node “N” in Section 5 (Transit Behavior) belonging to a different administrative domain? PC: Draft assumes that nodes are within a multi-domain network managed within a single administrative domain. Section 7 is on Intra Domain deployment Basic Security, will you consider “Inter Domain” basic security? PC: Inter-domain security will be described in a companion document. Network programming only covers intra-domain security. I assume that “SEC 1”, “SEC 2” etc. are meant for Identifying “Basic Security”. Can you use a “SEC-1”, or “SEC-REQ-1”, etc. to make it easier for cross reference from other documents? PC: Sure. We’ll use SEC-1, SEC-2 and so on in the next version of the draft. Thanks, Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
