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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Shraddha, for your reply and your update.

About the point in 4.2, I would suggest being clear in the document (intro ?) that the scope is about unicast addressed.

Regards

-éric

From: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 26 July 2024 at 03:51
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)
Hi Eric,

Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see inline for replies..

Version -19 will address your comments


Rgds
Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 6:34 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Éric Vyncke 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!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9KkseoJRXa$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9KkseoJRXa$>
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!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9KkjxKO9tr$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9KkjxKO9tr$>



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Tarek Saad for the shepherd's (very) concise write-up including the WG consensus _but it lacks_ the justification of the intended status.

Please note that Wassim Haddad is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though):
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/reviewrequest/19810/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9KkoqhuLhY$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/reviewrequest/19810/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9KkoqhuLhY$>

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

It is unclear (to me at least) whether "administration", "operator", and "AS"
are equivalent else how they are different. Some clarifications will be welcome.
<SH> I changed the word "administration" to "ownership" in a few places. Hope that helps
Clarify. I also changed "operator" to "network operator". Term operator is used mostly
To refer to network engineers managing network ops.

## Section 4

Unsure whether the lead text helps as it also appears in the IANA considerations.
<SH> I'll leave at as is for now unless you have a suggestion on how to modify to make it
More useful.

## Section 4.1

Please specify the fields Type & Length (notably in size) to be complete.

`Length : 16 octets` is somehow confusing as the field length is 2 octets.
Let's be detailed here.
<SH> ok

## Section 4.2

Are anycast and multicast addresses in scope in this I-D ? Let's be specific and use "unicast" then.
<SH> anycast and multicast addresses are not in the scope of this document.
## Section 6

Suggest adding the URL for the registry
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml*sub-tlv-1-16-21__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9Kku1121FX$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml*sub-tlv-1-16-21__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AstFneyxv0PL8lRHxy9EVGgyqncGOfaEBvbIlLT_KWkjGFVGWMz1nVjNiKDu00_ALex26M9Kku1121FX$>
<SH> I am not sure if that is needed. I haven't done that for any of the previous RFCs

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

Suggestion: use a spell checker for `administriations`, `bandiwdth`, `descrepancies`, `agnored`, ...

s/4 octet unsigned integer/4-octet unsigned integer/

s/Link Local IPv6/Link-local IPv6/

<SH> fixed