Re: [OSPF] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-23: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

please see inline:

On 14/12/17 03:43 , Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-23: 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-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Substantive Comments:
>
> - Requirements Language: There are a few instances of 2119 keywords in lower
> case. Please consider if those are meant to be normative.If not, then please
> use the boilerplate from RFC 8184, which explicitly excludes lower case
> instances as normative keywords.

changed some of them to normative, replaced rest with alternative wording.

>
> -3.1, 2nd to last paragraph: Why aren't the 3 "SHOULDs" "MUSTs"? It seems like
> these might have an impact on interoperability, or at least predictable
> behavior in edge conditions.

done.
>
> -3.4: (same comment as for 3.1)

done.

>
> Editorial Comments and Nits:
>
> -1, first paragraph: There are a lot of ideas packed into that paragraph. It's
> not clear to me which the "For example" sentences means to exemplify.

Removed "For example".

>
> -3.3, 2nd to last paragraph: Why is "NOT" capitalized?

Changed to "not".


Please see the updated version at:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-24.txt

thanks,
Peter
>
>
> .
>