Sorry, sorry, sorry... I stupidly checked the DIFFs from the previous version only, and there were multiple updates. I claim that it's late and I've had too much Dutch beer. You're quite right that you have addressed my comments and my DISCUSS, and I'm off to clear that now. Thanks for the updates and for your patience with me. :-O Barry On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:12 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Barry, thanks for the fast response! Please see inline. > > > > On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Darren, > > Barry Leiba - s/register/registry/ > > > That was a nit, and thanks for correcting it. > > But you addressed neither my DISCUSS issue (about the registry policy) > > nor my comment (about the fact that "IETF Review" is not defined in > BCP 26). > > > The draft now states the registries are "IETF Review” which is defined in BCP 26, and which you suggested we use in your discuss: > - "I suggest that you instead go with "IETF Review" and eliminate the need for a designated expert.” > > We made that change a couple of revisions ago because many reviewers noted the same thing > I believe I only updated Joe’s thread on the same so I’m not surprised you didn’t notice it yet - sorry for that! > > Here is the link to the new text that you and others requested: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-25#section-8.1 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-25#section-8.2 > > Thanks! > Darren > > > Barry > >
