Thomas, here's some feedback about draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 :
Since Figure 1 is intended to update the "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry, it should contain the same columns as that registry - ie, Value, Description, Reference. The ElementID, Abstract Data Type, and Data Type Semantics are already defined in the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry; they are not pertinent here. So Figure 1 should be: ------------------------------------------- |Value| Description | Reference | |-----------------------------------------| |TBD1 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | |-----------------------------------------| |TBD2 | OSPF Segment Routing | RFC8665 | ------------------------------------------- If the draft is to be accepted by IANA then it needs to be published or archived somewhere, since RFC 7012 (and RFC 5102) say: The specification of new MPLS label types MUST be published using a well-established and persistent publication medium. "not believed" in section 3 is not rigorous; the statement must be definite - eg "This document does not add any additional IPFIX security considerations.", or "The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX Protocol [RFC7012]." Surely many of the Normative references are simply Informative? eg I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting, RFC4364, RFC5036, RFC8277, RFC8660, RFC8665, RFC8667. Typo: "laveraged" in the second paragraph of section 1. P. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
