[sfc] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-sfc-nsh-tlv/



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

I'm having trouble understanding the first thing you've got in Section 7.  You
have one table of assignments to make, but you're referencing two distinct
sub-registries under "Network Service Header (NSH) Parameters", namely "NSH MD
Class" and "NSH IETF-Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types".  There
doesn't appear to be a "metadata context type registry".  I think this change
clarifies what you mean, but please tell me if I'm wrong:

OLD:

   IANA is requested to assign the following types from the "NSH IETF-
   Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types" (0x0000 IETF Base
   NSH MD Class) registry available at [IANA-NSH-MD2]:

   This document defines the following new values (Table 1) in the
   Network Service Header (NSH) metadata context Type registry:

NEW:

   IANA is requested to assign the following types (Table 1) from the IETF
   Review range in the "NSH MD Class" sub-registry of the "Network Service
   Header (NSH) Parameters" registry:


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

Thank you for a well done shepherd writeup.

I support Ben's DISCUSS position, particularly the first point.

A suggestion on organization: I think what you have as the top of Section 7
should be a subsection (e.g., 7.1), and then the other subsections moved down. 
It doesn't make sense to me to have these registrations be dominant over the
others; they're all just a set of IANA actions.

I have the same comment as Francesca about Section 4.1.