Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/



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

The shepherd writeup omits an answer to the question "Why is this the proper
type of RFC?"

Although "TC" and "IS-IS" are defined in the glossary in Section 1.2, they
appear in no other sections.  (It's "ISIS" elsewhere.")

In Section 1.3, I don't think you can start a sentence with "e.g."

In Section 2.1: It says, "The processing node SHOULD rate-limit the number of
packets ...", but no guidance is given on what a good rate might be.