Re: [Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-19: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

please see inline:


On 03/12/18 15:42 , Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-19: 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Minor comments:
> 1) In intro: "...while an adjacency segment, in
>     most cases, is a one-hop path."
> Is that true, that in _most_ cases it is one hop?

the text is referring to adjacency segment, which is local and only 
programmed on the node where the adjacency exists and its path is 
representing the path to the adjacent neighbor. This is contrary to 
prefix segment, which is global and programmed on all routers, so can 
represent a multi-hop path.

> I though SR makes most sense
> in order to specify routers/hops that need to be visited, not matter how many
> hops are in between.
>
> 2) The contributor section has the following statement:
> "The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content
>     of this document and should be considered as co-authors:"
> Should this section then not be called "Authors" instead?

we had too many authors and Alvaro suggested we move them to 
Contributors section.

thanks,
Peter

>
>
> .
>