Subject: [spring] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 05:29:13 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: 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-ldp-interop/

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

I'm not sure if informational status wouldn't be more applicable to this doc
but I also fine with Proposed Standard.

nits:
1) In sec 3.1.1 I assume "neighbor" and not "neighbot" is meant...

2) In sec 3.2 this could probably be an upper case MAY:
"Multiple SRMSs may be present in the same network (for redundancy)."

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:37:56 -0500

Not my ballot thread, but ...

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop/

This is either the best typo or the best  portmanteau(*) I've seen on an
IESG evaluation ballot in the last five years.

I look forward to finding out whether it's intentional!

Spencer

(*) If it is a portmanteau, it's well worthy of inclusion in
https://www.vappingo.com/word-blog/86-great-examples-of-portmanteau/.