Subject: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:01:24 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: 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-spring-segment-routing-msdc/

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

I spent a long time trying to understand the following text from section 2,
where the sub-bullet appears to flatly contradict its parent bullet:

   o  Each node is its own AS (Node X has AS X). 4-byte AS numbers are
      recommended ([RFC6793]).

      *  For simple and efficient route propagation filtering, Node5,
         Node6, Node7 and Node8 use the same AS, Node3 and Node4 use the
         same AS, Node9 and Node10 use the same AS.

After a great deal of study of these and the following bullets, I convinced
myself (perhaps incorrectly?) that the intention here is to say "We're going to
talk about these nodes as if they each have their own AS, although in real
deployments they'll probably be grouped together." Is that the intention? If
so, it would be much easier to read if the sub-bullet made this clearer.