Subject: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header issue #60

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 22:59:47 +0100

Again, the deletion of the flag addresses the lack of description of the flag, so that settles the issue for me.
 
Again, I'm surprised that a flag that the WG wanted included can so quietly be dropped, but maybe this is linked to the removal of all TLVs except the HMAC (that has its own flag) and the pads that don't appear to count as important TLVs.
 
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