Subject: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-23: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:15:00 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-23: 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-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/

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

* It would be good to clarify that this document is intended for OSPFv2 only
(probably in the title and/or abstract). It may also be worthwhile for the
document and/or the Shepherd writeup to explain why the WG decided to separate
the OSPFv3 extensions into a different document.

* I think RFC2328 should be a Normative Reference and not an informative
reference.

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:37:30 +0100

Hi Suresh,

please see inline:

On 13/12/17 22:15 , Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> (probably in the title and/or abstract).

I changed the text in the abstract, which now says:

"This draft describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment Routing."

> It may also be worthwhile for the

OSPFv3 SR extensions are based on the  	
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, which is OSPFv3 specific. That's why 
WG decided to use a separate document to describe OSPFv3 SR extensions.

> * I think RFC2328 should be a Normative Reference and not an informative

done.

Please see the updated version at:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-24.txt

thanks,
Peter
> .

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:26:09 +0000

Hi Peter,
  Thanks a lot for addressing my comments. Your changes look good to me.

Regards
Suresh

On Dec 14, 2017, at 7:37 AM, Peter Psenak <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Suresh,

please see inline:

OSPFv3 SR extensions are based on the
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, which is OSPFv3 specific. That's why WG decided to use a separate document to describe OSPFv3 SR extensions.

done.

thanks,
Peter

.