Thank you for clarifying the point.
I agree with closing this issue based on Errata 7102 for RFC 8754.
Yuya
On 2023/08/08 23:59, Joel Halpern wrote:
Issue #3 in the datatracker reads
The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in
[RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds
I agree that the resolution sufficient to close the issue.
Yuya
On 2023/08/09 0:00, Joel Halpern wrote:
Issue #4 reads:
In some cases it is possible that the SR policy can be expressed purely with
C-SIDs without requiring an SRH. In this case, to allow the SR domain to fail
closed, some form
I agree that the resolution sufficient to close the issue.
Yuya
On 2023/08/09 0:00, Joel Halpern wrote:
Issue #5 reads:
The use of C-SIDs might cause some difficulty in troubleshooting error
conditions signaled by ICMPv6. Section 5.4 of [RFC8754] describes the ICMPv6
error processing that is
I agree with closing this issue regarding to draft-ietf-6man-sids.
Yuya
On 2023/08/16 10:30, Joel Halpern wrote:
As mentioned earlier, we also need to confirm the resolution of issue #2 on the
subject document.
This call will run for 1 week. Please speak up if you either support closing
thi
