Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: 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-ospf-mpls-elc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- — Section 1 — In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to Nit: this needs a comma after the citation. — Section 3 — When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between Nit: the abbreviation “ABR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s no reason to include it. — Section 3.1 — Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field. Nit: hyphenate “one-octet” as a compound modifier. — Section 4 — The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF document? There does seem to be so much common text between that document and this one that I really don’t understand why these (the IS-IS and OSPF signaling) were not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
