Hey Robert, Some detailed responses. The revision will be posted when the authors have signed off. Regards, Adrian > The 2nd sentence of the introduction is complex. It should > be easy to simplify. Done > It would help to place the reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy > label at "If encoding of entropy is desired". (Or if some other reference > is better, use that) Used RFC 6790. > In that same paragraph, something is wrong at "make use of entropy > label mechanism." Should that be "the entropy label mechanism"? Yes. I have done some gardening. > SRGB is used without expansion. Fixed. > Where is "the lower bound" of an SRGB defined? The string "lower bound" > doesn't occur in either of the routing-extensions drafts referenced where > SRGB is first used. The concept of an SRGB is defined in RFC 8402. I've added a reference to this at the first use of 'SRGB'. > Section 3.1 is about ostensibly about constructing a FIB entry, but its > last step is sending a packet. Yes. Overly enthusiastic engineers! 😊 I have jiggled the text so that the last couple of points are about how the FIB is used. > The first sentence in section 3.2 is more complex than it needs to be. It > should be easy to simplify. OK > It would be nice if you could make the differences between the routers in > figures 3 and 4 visually apparent rather than relying on text to explain the > difference. Something like (view in a fixed width font): We looked at this, but decided against. If we adopt some kind of notation, we will still need to explain it in the text, and the explanation will only complicate things. > At the first paragraph on page 9: s/and then process/and then processes/ Yes
