Subject: [Teas] John Scudder's Yes on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 08:41:52 -0700

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp/

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

I just noticed that RFC 4873 has:

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |I|R|   Reserved    | Seg.Flags |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

But this draft has:

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |I|R|   Reserved    | Seq.Flags |   Reserved    | Preempt Prio  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"Seg" with a G got changed into "Seq" with a Q. I assume that was a typo and should be corrected.