Pete, thanks for your review. Acee and Peter, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot. I can see Pete’s concern but I’m hopeful that given the existing deployment experience and the added clarification in the -20 the concern will be mitigated in practice.
Alissa > On Dec 3, 2018, at 5:33 PM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > On 3 Dec 2018, at 15:46, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >> Hi Pete, >> >> While both you and I would have done it differently, the variable length SID >> encoding across the three LSR protocols (OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and IS-IS) has been >> implemented, deployed, and will not be changed during the IESG review >> (you'll note these SR protocol drafts have been in development for over 5 >> years). There is, however, an update to all three which clarifies the usage >> of the flags. See (for example): >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20.txt >> >> Thanks, >> Acee (Document Shepherd and LSR Co-chair) > > Totally understood, and that's why I said that I certainly don't want to > stand in the way of the doc. And I appreciate the clarification in -20; it > helps. My job as a GenART reviewer is to make sure that the Gen AD is aware > of any issues. I think it's highly unlikely that she (or anyone on the IESG) > would balk at this point in history. > > Thanks for your (and Peter's) quick replies to these reviews. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ > All connections to the world are tenuous at best > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
