Subject: [sfc] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 06:22:05 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: Yes

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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking minor COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Greg Mirsky for the shepherd's write-up about the WG
consensus.

Thank you also to Bob Halley for the positive review for the Internet
directorate:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09-intdir-telechat-halley-2021-11-09/

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.3 and 4.4 --
Suggestion be consistent about where the 'opaque' tag is used, i.e., in the
preamble in §4.4 and in the Node ID description in §4.3.

-- Section 4.5 --
The IPv6 Flow Label header field length/type are described in RFC 8200 and not
in RFC 6437.

== NITS ==

Some glaring typos s/serveral/several/, please use a spell checker ;-)

Sometimes 'octet' is used but 'byte' is also used, I would prefer to be
consistent and use only 'octet' but this is very cosmetic.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 16:17:23 +0800 (CST)

Eric,
All the comments are addressed as following in-line text and will update to next version.
Thank you so much!
== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.3 and 4.4 --
Suggestion be consistent about where the 'opaque' tag is used, i.e., in the
preamble in §4.4 and in the Node ID description in §4.3.
<Yuehua: will put opague to the Source Interface description in §4.4>>

-- Section 4.5 --
The IPv6 Flow Label header field length/type are described in RFC 8200 and not
in RFC 6437.
<Yuehua: replace RFC 6437 with RFC 8200>
== NITS ==

<Yuehua: accepted>>

<Yuehua:  accepted>>

Best Regards,
Yuehua Wei
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：ÉricVynckeviaDatatracker
收件人：The IESG;
抄送人：[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];[email-masked];
日 期 ：2021年11月16日 22:22
主 题 ：Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with COMMENT)