[Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 18 May 2021 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4893A1868; Tue, 18 May 2021 09:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, chopps@chopps.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162135395603.17789.1529550001792151463@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:05:56 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/oCNTMx0uhMyOerrGYHITq4bYj68>
Subject: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 16:05:56 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: 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-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

Thank you to Christian Hopps for his shepherd's write-up (including the WG
consensus).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2 --
Any reason why the bits of the 'Flags' field are not reserved (except for the
O-bit) ?  or be in a to-be-created IANA registry? I would expect the default
value for sending them (usually 0) and what to do on the receiving side(s) when
the value is not 0 (usually ignore them). E.g., see the section 7.1

-- Section 3 --
Isn't it obvious that the "Segment Routing Algorithm" is also supported by SRv6
routers ? Consider removing this section ? If you prefer to keep it, then
please use the wording "Segment Routing Algorithm" exactly as in the IANA
registry.

-- Section 7.1 (also 7.2 and possibly others) --
The header 'Length' should not be defined as 'variable' as it is probably a
fixed length of 1 octet. Specifying how it is measured and in which units
(octets, 32-bit word, ...) is probably welcome.

-- Section 7.2 --
What is the default value of the "Flags" field?

== NITS ==

-- title-
Should the plural form be used for 'extension' ?

-- Section 1 --
s\topology/algorithm specific\topology/algorithm-specific\ ?

-- Section 13 --
While there is a rather long contributors list, there is no acknowledgement
section. The latter is of course optional but usual. Should the doc shepherd or
last call reviewers be acknowledged ?