Subject: Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:06:12 -0700

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/

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

Hi,

I'm only reporting few nits that I think I have found. I may have a couple of questions later.

      TC: Traffic Class.
this is apparently not used in the document.
Also, IGP, OSPF and ISIS are in fact well-known abbreviations.

I find this:
   The information elements include parts of the packet header and/or
   parts of the packet payload for flow identification.
Slightly in contradiction with:
   This document does not specify the data elements that need to be
   exported

   If a node supports the O-flag, it can optionally advertise its
   potential via control plane protocol(s).
Should an Informative reference, for example to draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext, be added here?

The traceroute examples (Fig 3 and 4) don't seem to follow the 2001:db8:i:j:in:: convention.

In 3.1.2 and 3.2.2
   node N4 executes the SID
I think it is N2

s/2001:db8::A:k::/128/2001:db8:A:k::/128/

s/B5::/2001:db8:A:5::/

s/2001:db8:4:5::52::/2001:db8:4:5:52::/

s/node 5/node N5/ (twice)
s/node 3/node N3/