Dear Dhruv, Thank you for your support and feedback on this document.
I’ll work with the other co-authors on integrating your suggestions. Thanks, Francois On Feb 4, 2024 at 11:21:22, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Joel, WG, > > I support this I-D and would like to see it published. I have a few > suggestions that the authors and WG could consider. FWIW I did not review > the pseudocode for correctness :) > > ## Suggestions > > - A general reader might be tempted to know why two flavors exist? Perhaps > a few sentences in section 4 could be added. > - An operator might be looking for guidance on when to use which flavor > and with which C-SID lengths. Perhaps these are things better suited in > proposed srv6ops, or is it possible to add some high level operational > guidance here? > - Section 11, is there any guidance to these future documents that is > worth adding? > > ## Minor > > - Consider adding one sentence to introduce SRv6 in the abstract. > - Consider adding text that the term LOC is used for SID locator in RFC > 8986 alongside other terms. > - Section 5, RESERVED is not a BCP14 keyword, perhaps reword to use > another BCP14 keyword if you need a normative framing! > - Section 7, in Locator-Block B2/m, better to explicitly say what m is. > - Section 7.1, "it could be learnt via configuration or using a signaling > protocol", which signaling protocol are you thinking of? > - Table 1, there are some TBA in the list, which seems incorrect as they > have assigned values in the registry already, please use the values instead > of TBA! Also consider adding all columns as per the registry that includes > Hex, change control as well. > > ## Nits > > - Expand SRv6 in Title > - Expand for following abbreviation > - PSP > - USP > - USD > - I find this style "The SPRING working group has observed that..." odd > and not suitable for standard track RFC. > - Section 7 title "Inter Routing Domains Compression" is unclear! Perhaps > "Compression in Multiple Routing Domains" or "Inter-Domain Compression"? > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:58 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > >> (One of the other chairs pointed out that this had not gone to the list. >> So forwarding the announcement.) >> >> This tarts the WG last call on the above document. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Joel >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression >> Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:25:02 -0800 (PST) >> Resent-From: alias-boun...@ietf.org >> Resent-To: bruno.decra...@orange.com, aretana.i...@gmail.com, >> j...@joelhalpern.com, pengshup...@huawei.com >> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:25:02 -0800 >> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> >> <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> >> To: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org, >> spring-cha...@ietf.org >> >> >> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression has been >> changed >> to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ >> >> Comment: >> This starts the WG last call for this document. Please comment with >> support >> or opposition, and explanation of your perspective. Silence is not >> consent, >> and just "support" or "oppose" is not helpful. This call will run through >> the end of Feb 4, 2024. Yours, Joel Halpern - responsible Spring co-chair >> >> PS: I would appreciate a document shepherd from the WG for the bnext >> step. Email me if you are willing. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
