Re: [Lsr] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

On 04/12/18 10:49 , Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: 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-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hello,
>
> thank you for this document.
> I do have the usual IESG comment of suggesting to use RFC 8174 text for the
> requirement language, and also have a suggestion: In section 7.2 you say:
>        When the P-flag is not set, the Adj-SID MAY be persistent.  When
>        the P-flag is set, the Adj-SID MUST be persistent.
> Because we're in the LAN Adjacency section you may want to qualify the Adj-SID
> as being a LAN one.

I have addressed both of your comments and will be part of the ver 21.

thanks,
Peter

>
>
> .
>