Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-12: 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/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-spring-nsh-sr/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit. Special thanks to Bruno Decraene for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. Please note that Dave Thaler is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/reviewrequest/17400/ Even a double thanks to Dave as he also did an early int-dir review (and I noted the authors' reaction to this early review). I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non blocking) ## Acronyms May I suggest to also expand acronyms at first use *outside* the abstract ? E.g., SFF ## Section 3 The reader will understand better figure 1 with: * the packet outside border having a different border than the functions/devices (e.g., using '/' rather than '|') * the packet headers being closer to (1) and (4) * referring in the text to the steps (1), (2), ... ## Section 5.2 Should the cache be emptied when a packet came back ? or on time-out (as either no reply or multiple replies could be expected). The reader has to wait until section 9 to get some hints (and it is unclear whether the caching refers to the section 5.2 caching). ## Section 9 In absence of cache entry, should the text specify that the packet is dropped ? Or should a ICMP sent back to the SF ? # NITS (non blocking / cosmetic) ## Section 6.2 s/128 bits IPv6 address/128-bit IPv6 address/ ? _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
