Thanks Thomas, I will re-review the updated draft later. PA> 7. Implementation Status, I would put this section in an appendix to avoid the need to renumber sections 8, 9, and 10 when this is removed.
TG> Good point. I double checked. I am following Section 2 of RFC 7942 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7942#section-2) describing that the "Implementation Status" section should be before the "Security Considerations", which was previously before the "acknowledge" section in this document. I therefore adjusted accordingly. Then the issue remains: since the "Implementation Status" section is to be deleted, the following sections must be renumbered which could invalidate any references to those sections. eg, "... per the Security Considerations in section 9" would be wrong. Fortunately it's not (currently) an issue in this draft. Regarding your question who the srhIPv6ActiveSegmentType sub-registry should be. If Rob agrees, I as one of the authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh would volunteer to do the expert review. Benoit would be also available if needed. Great! So in section 5.9.1, please say something like, "and are subject to Expert Review [RFC8126] by SRH Experts" and ensure that IANA has a mailing list for that. Otherwise allocation would fall to IE-doctors who are not SRH experts! Thanks, P.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
