[sfc] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity/



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

Enough other Area Directors have said, and I agree, that this should officially
update RFC 8300, so I'd like to have the discussion.  In particular, given that
this was identified as a gap in RFC 8300, and since I don't see any explicit
statement that this is meant to be an optional extension, shouldn't it be an
update?


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

Only nits to add, given the thorough treatment already given by others:

Section 4.1.2: "The first level of assurance where all NSH data ..." -- add
"is" before "where"?  And the same issue in the next paragraph.

Section 5.2: s/Coves/Covers/