[mpls] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-17: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-17: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam/



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

Thank you to Peter E. Yee for the GENART review.

** Abstract
   It is
   useful to have the Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute
   procedures when an SR end-to-end path traverses multiple ASes or
   domains.

Are the multiple domains mentioned here “IGP domains”?  See below.

** Section 7
   The procedures described in this document enable LSP ping and
   traceroute to be executed across multiple IGP domains or multiple
   ASes that belong to the same administration or closely cooperating
   administrations.

I was under the impression (from RFC8402) that SR is limited to a single domain:
   By default, SR operates within a trusted domain.  Traffic MUST be
   filtered at the domain boundaries.

This text in Section 7 seems to be expanding scope.

** Section 8.3.  Editorial.  The registry name should be “Reply path return
codes" – “code” is missing an “s”