Thanks Ketan. This is OK. Maybe an explicit note on Section 3 that it is not normative might be good. But this is just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore it.
Thanks, Carlos On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:04 AM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses. We > will include these changes as part of the next update. > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:53 AM Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for >> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy. These comments were written >> primarily >> for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and >> shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat >> comments >> from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other >> Last >> Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT >> Directorate, >> see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>. >> >> The document is very well written and I just have a couple of small >> comments. >> >> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as >> NO >> OBJECTION. >> >> The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be >> corrected before publication: >> >> Section 3 makes use of a lot of potentially normative “may” which is not >> clear >> if they are meant to be normative or not. >> > > KT> The section 3 covers something that is implementation specific and > hence not normative. Previous versions of the document did carry the > normative MAYs which was later changed to "may" based on the WG inputs. > > >> >> The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text >> improvements) >> with the document: >> >> In section 3, when describing the SR-DB, two IGP protocols are mentioned >> (ISIS >> and OSPF). Are those the only ones meant to be supported? >> > > KT> Those are the "popular" IGPs and others are not precluded. That said, > I am not aware of the required SR extensions being available in others so > as to include/reference them here. > > >> >> “with the End behavior (as defined in [RFC8986]), of the node” —> I think >> the >> “,” should be removed >> > > KT> Ack > > Thanks, > Ketan > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
