[spring] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: 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-spring-resiliency-use-cases/



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

- Requirements Language: The 2119 keywords in this draft are not used in the
sense of RFC 2119. That RFC talks explicitly about interoperability among
protocol implementations. This draft uses them to define requirement for
protocol and architecture design. That's not necessarily a problem, but please
change the Requirements Language section to describe the actual usage.

-2, third paragraph from end:    "o  SPRING architecture MUST provide a way to
compute paths that MUST NOT be protected by local repair techniques..." The
MUST NOT seems a statement of fact. Consider something to the effect of "...
compute paths that are not protected by local repair techniques..."