[bess] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-12: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Having received a response to my DISCUSS, it's apparently common practice in
this area to have routers be non-interoperable without a priori knowledge of
neighbor capabilities. I still support John Scudder's second DISCUSS, but if
he's happy, I'm happy.

This document was very difficult to follow without a thorough grounding in the
references, but I managed to have some comments anyway:

- I support John Scudder's second DISCUSS.

- Please expand VRF, SLA, RIB, NLRI, and all other acronyms on first use.

(3.2.1) "      The Transposition Offset MUST be less than LBL+LNL+FL+AL

      The sum of Transposition Offset and Transposition Length MUST be
      less than LBL+LNL+FL+AL"

The second condition makes the first redundant for all Transposition Length >=
0! It makes me think there's a typo.

(5) and (6) "The SRv6 Service SID SHOULD be routable within the AS of the egress
   PE"

SHOULD? Under what circumstances would it be OK for it not to be routable? [I
see Alvaro also commented on this, but I'd like to call out that Sec 6 does the
same thing]