Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-spring-segment-routing-policy/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Cullen Jennings for his ARTART review. I'm hardly an expert on the technologies described here, but most of the SHOULDs I ran into left me wondering why they aren't MUSTs. There's no obvious (to me) implementation guidance present about when one might legitimately do something other than what the SHOULD says. Should Section 2.1 stipulate that symbolic names, if used, should be unique? Thanks for the attention to detail in Section 12. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
