Hi Gorry, Thanks for your review.
Regarding the AL size, the "should" is because in general for SRv6, there is no restriction on the size of AL (check https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986.html#section-3.1 for details) for SIDs. However, for this specific case, implementers wanted to indicate multiple of 8 so as to ensure consistency across implementations and ease of operations. Thanks, Ketan On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:58 PM Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: 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-bgp-srv6-args/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I found no-transport-related concerns in this document. > > I have one comment: > > “Additionally, as a > non-zero ARG value is being signaled, the Argument Length (AL) MUST > be set to the size of the ARG, and the size SHOULD be a multiple of > 8. “ > - WHY SHOULD? I may have missed, but did not see any reason why the length > is > specified this way. - Perhaps it would be useful to note how receivers are > to > process an AL size when not a multiple of 8? > > > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
