Subject: Re: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:11:37 +0000

Thanks, Mirja. Agreed, this passage could be clearer.

Benoit flagged this as well as part of Scott Bradner’s Ops-dir review, and we just sent in a proposed change.

— Carlos.

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04: 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-entropy-lsp-ping/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As Scott mentioned in his review, I also think that the following
> sentence needs more discussion:
> 
> "All LSRs along the LSP need to be able to understand the new flags
>   and the new multipath information type."
> 
> How can you ever know if this is true? Isn't the whole problem that you
> don't know what different LSRs implement?
> 
>