Hello Carlos,
Thank you again for your INT directorate review, it is always important to have
multiple pairs of eyes when reviewing a document.
As you may have seen in the spring mailing list, I have relied heavily on your
review.
¡Muchos gracias !
-éric
On 13/02/2022, 22:24, "Int-dir on behalf of Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker"
<int-dir-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of 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.
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?
“with the End behavior (as defined in [RFC8986]), of the node” —> I think
the
“,” should be removed
_______________________________________________
Int-dir mailing list
int-...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
