Éric Vyncke 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. I am afraid that, due to lack of available time, I only quickly reviewed this document and I will rely on the INT directorate review. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Jim Guichard for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus and discussion. Thanks also to Carlos Bernardos for the INT directorate review dated 13th of March. I have also seen that authors are in an email discussion with Carlos and I appreciate that Carlos was acknowledged in the acknowledgment section. See <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-16-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2022-02-13/>. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Generic comment: this document uses the term "headend", which is not used in other SRv6-related documents. Not really important though. ## Abstract Mostly cosmetic, but the abstract would benefit from being more concise and straight to the point. ## Section 2.1 Please use "::" rather than "::0" to respect RFC 5952. Also for section 8.8.1 I also share the concern of other AD for an ASCII-only symbolic name. ## Section 2.3 Why are the values 10, 20, and 30 only RECOMMENDED in a standard track document and are not a MUST ? If this is about distance, then let's be clear and name this value as "distance" or "origin-precedence". ## Section 2.13 Rather than using 1.1.1.1 or 2.2.2.2 please use the documentation addresses for IPv4 / IPv6. Same reasoning for using the example ASN. # NITS Probably a topic beaten to death but isn't "ISIS" spelled "IS-IS" ? Usually, "i.e." is always followed by a "," _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
