On 25/04/2025 15:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi Gorry,
Thanks for your review.
Regarding the AL size, the "should" is because in general for SRv6,
there is no restriction on the size of AL (check
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986.html#section-3.1 for details)
for SIDs. However, for this specific case, implementers wanted to
indicate multiple of 8 so as to ensure consistency across
implementations and ease of operations.
Thanks,
Ketan
This was only a comment: Please have a think whether some extra detail
may be useful, it would have helped me.
Gorry
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:58 PM Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: 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-bess-bgp-srv6-args/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I found no-transport-related concerns in this document.
I have one comment:
“Additionally, as a
non-zero ARG value is being signaled, the Argument Length (AL) MUST
be set to the size of the ARG, and the size SHOULD be a multiple of
8. “
- WHY SHOULD? I may have missed, but did not see any reason why
the length is
specified this way. - Perhaps it would be useful to note how
receivers are to
process an AL size when not a multiple of 8?
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
