Subject: [Lsr] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 01:49:51 -0800

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: No Objection

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-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/

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

Hello,

thank you for this document.
I do have the usual IESG comment of suggesting to use RFC 8174 text for the
requirement language, and also have a suggestion: In section 7.2 you say:
      When the P-flag is not set, the Adj-SID MAY be persistent.  When
      the P-flag is set, the Adj-SID MUST be persistent.
Because we're in the LAN Adjacency section you may want to qualify the Adj-SID
as being a LAN one.

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:16:40 +0100

Hi Martin,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/

I have addressed both of your comments and will be part of the ver 21.

thanks,
Peter

> .