[ippm] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-11: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Mahesh,

Thanks for the review.

I trust the authors will take care of your comment.

Please see one comment inline for a point related to a change I have suggested to the authors.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mardi 3 mars 2026 06:11
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; ippm-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-
> asymmetrical-pkts-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-11: 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.)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Section 2.1.1, paragraph 5
> >       EUI-48 Address Group: A six-octet field that represents
> the group
> >       that this TLV is addressed to.  If the Session-Reflector
> applies
> >       the EUI-48 Address Group Mask to its MAC address and the
> result is
> >       equal to the EUI-48 Address Group, then the Session-
> Reflector MUST
> >       stop processing the Layer 2 Address Group sub-TLV and
> continue
> >       processing the received test packet.  If no matches are
> found, the
> >       Session-Reflector MUST stop processing the received
> packet.
> 
> There is a bit of asymmetric text here in the description of L2
> address
> and in L2 Mask. It says here "its MAC address" while the Mask
> description says "all MAC addresses". To make it consistent with
> L3,
> it might be better to just say "all MAC addresses".
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> NIT
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you
> may choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were
> flagged by
> automated tools (via
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> Section 1.1, paragraph 1
> >    The document uses terms defined in [RFC8762], especially
> Session-
> >    Sender, Session-Reflector and Symmetrical Packets.
> >
> >    The document uses terms defined in [RFC8972], especially
> STAMP
> >    Session Identifier (SSID), STAMP TLV Flags and Sub-TLVs.
> 
> Do not know why these are two different sentences/paragraphs. Can
> they be combined?

[Med] I have suggested that split for visual comfort but more importantly because this makes it easy to associate terms with their specific authoritative source. Condensing all terms in one single para makes the flow hard.

I suggest we leave this unchanged. Thanks.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.