I support progressing this draft. I have the following minor comments for the authors to consider:
The title of Section 4 of this draft is “Advertisement of SRH Operation Limits”, and really it only covers the advertisements of MSDs, so may consider to change the title to be consistent with the ISIS SRv6 extensions draft, "Advertising Maximum SRv6 SID Depths”. The subsections in section 4 are almost identical to the subsections in draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extesions. It’s up to the authors and the WG to decide whether to keep this duplicate. In draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions, “topology/algorithm” is used, and it’s not consistently used in this draft. For example, in section 5 the second paragraph, only “algorithm” is used, while “topology/algorithm” is used later. Nits (line numbers are from idnits): 208 the SR Algorithm TLV defined in [RFC8665] as described in [RFC8666] SR Algorithm/SR-Algorithm Please add a “-“ to be consistent with RFC 8665. 355 The SRv6 Locator LSA has a function code of TBD while the S1/S2 bits “TBD” should be replaced with “42” as in IANA considerations. Thanks, Yingzhen > On Jul 29, 2022, at 10:16 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) > <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > As promised in today’s LSR WG meeting, this begins a 3 week WG Last Call, > ending on August 19th, 2022, for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions. The > extra week is to account for PIST (Post-IETF Stress Syndrome). The > corresponding IS-IS draft is already on the RFC Queue and there are > implementations. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/> > > > Thanks, > Acee & Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr