Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-bess-srv6-services/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Having received a response to my DISCUSS, it's apparently common practice in this area to have routers be non-interoperable without a priori knowledge of neighbor capabilities. I still support John Scudder's second DISCUSS, but if he's happy, I'm happy. This document was very difficult to follow without a thorough grounding in the references, but I managed to have some comments anyway: - I support John Scudder's second DISCUSS. - Please expand VRF, SLA, RIB, NLRI, and all other acronyms on first use. (3.2.1) " The Transposition Offset MUST be less than LBL+LNL+FL+AL The sum of Transposition Offset and Transposition Length MUST be less than LBL+LNL+FL+AL" The second condition makes the first redundant for all Transposition Length >= 0! It makes me think there's a typo. (5) and (6) "The SRv6 Service SID SHOULD be routable within the AS of the egress PE" SHOULD? Under what circumstances would it be OK for it not to be routable? [I see Alvaro also commented on this, but I'd like to call out that Sec 6 does the same thing] _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
