Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: Discuss
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-isis-te-app/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This should be simple to resolve - the use of the SR-TE term is out-of-alignment with other drafts, spring and idr. Suggest: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering/s/Segment Routing Policy and SRTE/s/SR Policy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I found this document a bit easier to read than the OSPF one. Though it also seems (implementation) confused on 1:1 association of signaling over a link with data use of the link and so the confusion on what application to support on the link. As I noted on the OSPF one, it would be much clearer to simply discuss the main problem (to me) - the ability to support advertisement of application specific values? I don't see any discussion on the dark bandwidth problem or the security problems identified in RFC8426? It would be helpful if the draft pointed to the RFC8426 solution. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr