Hi Gorry, That bit of detail has been added in the v08 of the draft that was just posted.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-08 Thanks, Ketan On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > On 25/04/2025 15:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > 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 > > This was only a comment: Please have a think whether some extra detail may > be useful, it would have helped me. > > Gorry > > > 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
