Subject: [Idr] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 00:11:00 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-14: Discuss

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a well written document. I have one small issue to discuss before
voting "no objection".

At the end of section 2: why path identifier "SHOULD be treated as
opaque" instead of "MUST be treated as opaque"? What are possible reasons
to violate the SHOULD?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be better if section 6 is moved earlier in the document, so that
readers can understand why bother with this extension.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:13:32 +0000

On 5/2/16, 3:11 AM, "iesg on behalf of Alexey Melnikov"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

[Author hat on.]

Alexei:

Hi!

>draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-14: Discuss

I think you reviewed version -13.  Both your points below have already
been addressed in -14.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 15:29:01 +0100

Hi Alvaro,
Good point well presented :-)! I will clear.