Subject: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header issue #63 - nit remains

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:16:24 +0100

Your new 3.2 removes my concern by removing the restatement of text from 8200 and leaving us to read 8200 for normative behavior: good.
 
But you have a nit in your new text...
 
   Extension header processing is as defined in RFC8200 for packets
   destined to a local IPv6 address. 
 
This appears to say that processing not destined to a local address are handled differently from RFC8200. But presumably all processing is per 8200. So how about...
 
   Extension header processing is as defined in RFC8200. If the SRH
   is present on a packet destined to a local IPv6 address, it is
   processed as follows (DA represents the destination address in
   the IPv6 header):
 
Adrian

From: Darren Dukes (ddukes) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 23 April 2018 21:48
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG last call review of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
 
Hi Adrian.  Thanks for your review of rev11. 
 
The following issue numbers were open by you and are closed in revision revision 12. Please respond to this email acknowledging the closures so Bob can record it.
 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/57> #57,  <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/58> #58,  <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/59> #59,  <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/60> #60,  <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/61> #61,  <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/63> #63, 
 
 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/62> #62 is not closed yet, sending me specific examples would be useful.
 
 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/64> #64 Still open.  It contains your minor issues/Nits.  19 of which are fixed/resolvable in rev12, 6 remain open.  I’ll send a separate email on this.
 
Thanks!
 Darren