[sfc] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: Yes

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/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking minor COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Greg Mirsky for the shepherd's write-up about the WG
consensus.

Thank you also to Bob Halley for the positive review for the Internet
directorate:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09-intdir-telechat-halley-2021-11-09/

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.3 and 4.4 --
Suggestion be consistent about where the 'opaque' tag is used, i.e., in the
preamble in §4.4 and in the Node ID description in §4.3.

-- Section 4.5 --
The IPv6 Flow Label header field length/type are described in RFC 8200 and not
in RFC 6437.

== NITS ==

Some glaring typos s/serveral/several/, please use a spell checker ;-)

Sometimes 'octet' is used but 'byte' is also used, I would prefer to be
consistent and use only 'octet' but this is very cosmetic.