[mpls] Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-17: Discuss

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-sr-epe-oam/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fear not. The DISCUSS I am holding seems like an oversight and should be easy
to address.

Section 2, paragraph 0
> 2.  Theory of Operation

In response to the OPSDIR review performed by Tianran Zhou, thanks Tianran, the
authors proposed additional text to describe what happens when the packet
arrives in a non-cooperating domain. The authors promised the changes as part
of -18 version of the draft but never posted that version. Holding a DISCUSS to
make sure the latest version of the document is being reviewed.


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

Section 5, paragraph 1
>    When a remote ASBR of the EPE-SID advertisement receives the MPLS OAM
>    packet with top FEC being the EPE-SID, it MUST perform validity
>    checks on the content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV.  The basic length
>    check should be performed on the received FEC.

Is the should a SHOULD? What happens if the basic length check is not performed?

Section 10, paragraph 0
> 10.  APPENDIX

The section formatting for the Appendix does not look correct. It is showing up
in the normative section of the draft, instead of appearing as <back> material.
Same for References.

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool) so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 4.1, paragraph 21
> o validate the incoming interface for a OAM packet and if the remote descript
>                                       ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".