Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-19: 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-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this work. It was an interesting read, which is uncommon for those of us up in Applications space where the air is thin. Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points about use of BCP 14 language. The remainder of my original comment follows. == I have the same question as others about having six authors on this document. I concur in particular with Eric's comments. I have some concerns with the shepherd writeup. Question #11 is incomplete; question #13 has me concerned that the question was not directly asked of the authors. Section 3 defines "SPT_old()" but it doesn't appear anywhere else in this document. Also it seems to me the definitions of "Primary interface" and "Primary link" could be merged, because the former term doesn't appear anywhere in the document other than in the definition of the latter. And a very minor point: We define "adj-sid()", but throughout the document it's variably that or "Adj-Sid()". We should probably pick one and use it consistently. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
