Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-24: Yes
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-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Samuel, all, The changes in [1] fully address my previous DISCUSS/COMMENTs [2]. Thank you for carefully tracking all those. There are some few nits: * Section 2: s/An LSP set up using/An LSP setup using * Section 4: s/the ASSOCIATION object Section 6.1 of [RFC8697]/the ASSOCIATION object (Section 6.1 of [RFC8697]) * Section 5.14: (1) s/If this flag is not set/If this flag is set to 0 (more than occurrence in the text) (2) OLD: More flags can be assigned in the future per (Section 6.7) NEW: More flags can be assigned in the future per (Section 6.7). * Section 5.4.1: s/As stated in Section 8.1 of [RFC9256]1/As stated in Section 8.1 of [RFC9256] As a general note (and I'm looking to the routing ADs :-)), I hope we can have an overview document that glue the various SR policy (and beyond) pieces in operations and go through to assess how these can be grafted together. Cheers, Med [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-24 [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/zYWbTajJ943cNxLLySO6kCEaw4Q/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
