Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2024-04-30 IETF LC End Date: 2024-04-29 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with a couple of nits. A thought occurred to me - the experiment is written as assuming that the routing will be in single managed domain. However, once the Segments Left has been reduced to zero, the CRH remains fixed and it would, in principle, be possible to send the packet out into the wider network to be routed by conventional means. I would also note that the header could also act as a back channel by sending information in SIDs with indexes greater than the intial value of segments left that are never actually used by the CRH mechanism. Major issues: None Minor issues: In the Abstract and Introduction, the abbreviation CRH is expanded to Compact Routing Header(s) but s3 and the draft headers refer to them as Compressed Routing Headers. I take Compact is the current preferred version. Nits/editorial comments: s5.1, notes at end: It would be desirable to call them Note 1 and Note 2. The comment in the 'submit the packet' bullet should refer to Note 1. Note 2 is a general note applying to the previous bullets. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
