[mpls] Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the reply, I check the updated version.

//Zahed

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 04:10, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review and comments.
> Pls see inline for replies
> Ver-19 will address your comments
>
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 2:07 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E2ZUZphdBssfuEz78gl3-BamIF0jB0dWqF2owJnK3Agx6MMmq4kTo2nzhwDjZXBAx-7_QFoffIp_GHZi$
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E2ZUZphdBssfuEz78gl3-BamIF0jB0dWqF2owJnK3Agx6MMmq4kTo2nzhwDjZXBAx-7_QFoffOrgNM8O$
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on this specification. My review didn't surface
> transport protocol related concerns.
>
> However, it was not easy for me to understand the exact meaning of
> "receiving node", so I interpreted as a node receiving "SID", that can be
> completely misinterpretation. Can we define it in this specification or
> point to where this is defined  to avoid confusion?
>
> <SH> corrected some incorrect use of "receiving node"
> And added below clarification
> " Receiving node term used in this section implies the node that receives
> OAM message
>          with the FEC stack TLV"
>
>