John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12: 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/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-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for the high-quality shepherd write-up with illuminating details. I have one point I'd like to have a discussion about. As you note in Section 6.2, compressed segment lists are a thing, and one of their implications is that (with certain flavors) one can have an SRH-less SRv6 packet, a "bare cSID". I wonder if it would be desirable to elaborate on how (for example) the srhSegmentIPv6ListSection is to be formed (I guess it might just be a verbatim copy of the cSID, and the importer has to do the work to figure it out?) or how the srhSegmentIPv6BasicList is to be formed (I guess the exporter has to do the work to decompress the cSID to provide the expanded representation). And what of srhIPv6Section? Would it just be omitted in the case of a bare cSID, would it be a zero-length octetArray, ...? I don't have a fixed idea of how (or even if) the document should be changed to address this question but I'd like to know the authors' thoughts on the matter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- srhIPv6ActiveSegmentType is described (in a couple places) as the "name of the routing protocol". It's not a name, though, that would imply a string. It's a designator; the protocol is named in the associated IANA registry, not the information element itself. Probably you could fix this by just dropping "name of the" although you could also change it to something like "designator of the". _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
