[Idr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-17: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-17: 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-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read
albeit a little unclear about its focus (see my comments below).

I am always positively amazed how BGP can be used as a signaling protocol for
new use cases :-)

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
In "doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing.", is it
"imposing" or "processing" ? Esp. when section 1.1.1 uses the word "supported"
and "label imposition" does not really fit SRv6.

If this document is only about SR-MPLS, then please modify title, abstract, and
introduction to reflect this focus.

-- Section 3 --
Unsure whether "MSD values may be learned via a hardware API or may be
provisioned. " provides any added value.

While it is unclear to me whether this document applies only to SR-MPLS, but,
if it applies also to SRv6, then is it required to be able to advertise to MSD
per node ? One for SR-MPLS and one for SRv6?