Subject: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:32:30 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-06: 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-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath/

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

Thank you for the responses to Jorg's TSV-ART review.

I did see one point in his review, that I'm not seeing a response or document
change for.

He said,

1. With the potentially substantial stacking of TLVs, I am wondering how large
   packets can get, especially if numerous links might constitute a LAG and all
   of those are extensively described.  It may be useful to provide the reader
   with some intuition.   There are many useful examples in the document, but
   they all refer to individual fields.  A complete packet could be helpful.

My question is actually a follow-on - in a world where we even tunnel tunnels,
are there going to be MTU size issues that might be mentioned?