[spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 January 2018 04:01 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B8A1242F7; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:01:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, bruno.decraene@orange.com, spring@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151564328492.18377.10335503943075639602.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:01:24 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZRZCBRzl-ObwxAAO04kn3edcaXs>
Subject: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:01:25 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: 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-segment-routing-msdc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I spent a long time trying to understand the following text from section 2, where the sub-bullet appears to flatly contradict its parent bullet: o Each node is its own AS (Node X has AS X). 4-byte AS numbers are recommended ([RFC6793]). * For simple and efficient route propagation filtering, Node5, Node6, Node7 and Node8 use the same AS, Node3 and Node4 use the same AS, Node9 and Node10 use the same AS. After a great deal of study of these and the following bullets, I convinced myself (perhaps incorrectly?) that the intention here is to say "We're going to talk about these nodes as if they each have their own AS, although in real deployments they'll probably be grouped together." Is that the intention? If so, it would be much easier to read if the sub-bullet made this clearer.
- [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Adam Roach
- Re: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Gaurav Dawra