Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287
RFC 8690
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
** Section 4, per “The figures in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8287] are replaced by the below figures in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively”: -- none of the diagram in Section 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 are explicitly labeled as figures -- section 4.3 contains two “figures” (one is called a table in the text and the other has no designation). Which one of these is supposed to be a replacement for RFC8287 Section 5.3? ** Section 4.3. Assuming that the second figure is the replacement for RFC8287’s Section 5.3 figure, the length is still confusing to me. The figure in this draft appears to be a specific instance of the populated Sub-TLV. The existing figure in RFC8287 appears to be a generic depiction. The new figure doesn’t appear to be relevant (or presented incorrect information) if Adj Type = 1 and Protocol = 1 (for example). ** Section 4.3. Typo. s/Protocol =0/Protocol = 0/ ** Section 6. Recommend clarifying that there are no additional security considerations (not that there aren’t any). s/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any security considerations/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations/
Warren Kumari No Objection
Good catch from the Gen-Art review, this needs to be fixed.
Éric Vyncke No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.