Hi Peter, Thanks a lot for addressing my comments. Your changes look good to me.
Regards Suresh On Dec 14, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Suresh, please see inline: On 13/12/17 22:15 , Suresh Krishnan wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-23: 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-segment-routing-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * It would be good to clarify that this document is intended for OSPFv2 only (probably in the title and/or abstract). I changed the text in the abstract, which now says: "This draft describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment Routing." It may also be worthwhile for the document and/or the Shepherd writeup to explain why the WG decided to separate the OSPFv3 extensions into a different document. OSPFv3 SR extensions are based on the draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, which is OSPFv3 specific. That's why WG decided to use a separate document to describe OSPFv3 SR extensions. * I think RFC2328 should be a Normative Reference and not an informative reference. done. Please see the updated version at: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-24.txt thanks, Peter .
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
