Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)

["Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

Thanks for your comments!

> Minor comments/questions:
> 
> - Please spell out RRO in section 4.2

It was previously done in section 3. It doesn't need doing again, does it?

> 
> - Why are the following SHOULDs not MUSTs?
> "[...] the Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the SRLG recording
>    restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG
>    sub-object(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path
>    message."

Good question. The first one should definitely change for consistency with RFC 5420, and I think the second one should too.

> - Why do you need two (potentially different) policies for the two points
> below. Shouldn't a node that provides SRLG information initially, also
> always provide updates (as the initial information might otherwise be
> wrong and therefore not be able to address the originial intention anymore
> - disjoint paths)?
>    "o  Whether the node is allowed to participate in SRLG collection.
>    o  Whether the node should notify changes to collected SRLG
>       information to endpoint nodes as described in section 5.2."
> 

Merging them seems reasonable.

Cheers

Matt