Thanks Ketan.
This is OK. Maybe an explicit note on Section 3 that it is not normative might be good. But this is just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore it.
Thanks,
Carlos
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:04 AM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carlos,Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses. We will include these changes as part of the next update.On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:53 AM Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy. These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments
from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last
Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,
see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
The document is very well written and I just have a couple of small comments.
Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.
The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be
corrected before publication:
Section 3 makes use of a lot of potentially normative “may” which is not clear
if they are meant to be normative or not.KT> The section 3 covers something that is implementation specific and hence not normative. Previous versions of the document did carry the normative MAYs which was later changed to "may" based on the WG inputs.
The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:
In section 3, when describing the SR-DB, two IGP protocols are mentioned (ISIS
and OSPF). Are those the only ones meant to be supported?KT> Those are the "popular" IGPs and others are not precluded. That said, I am not aware of the required SR extensions being available in others so as to include/reference them here.
“with the End behavior (as defined in [RFC8986]), of the node” —> I think the
“,” should be removedKT> AckThanks,Ketan
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
