[mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11: 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-mpls-spring-lsp-ping/



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

I can't emphasize strongly enough that my understanding of segment routing is
neophyte-level on a good day, but I do have a question about Section 8.

I'm understanding that on a network path where some network elements support
segment routing while others do not, what you can measure is a ping or
traceroute to the first network element that doesn't support segment routing
(or is it to the last network element that does support segment routing?), but
you don't have any visibility along the path beyond that - do I have that right?

Assuming so ...

I didn't see anything about this topic before Section 8/page 16. Perhaps it's
worth mentioning whether this works earlier in the document, perhaps in the
Introduction?

My last point might not be in scope for this document, or even the SPRING
working group, but if this is a limitation, any suggestions you could make to
network operators with mixed networks (which I could imagine would be the rule,
rather than the exception, as the technology is deployed) about what they can
do to benefit most from this technology might be appreciated.