Subject: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:20:09 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-12: 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-idr-bgp-prefix-sid/

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

Minor commets:

1) Maybe spell out NLRI on first occurrence (sec 2).

2) Given there are currently no flags defined, wouldn't it be sufficient to use
the 8-bit reserved field for flags? Also do you really want to create an empty
registry on a first-come first-serve basis for the flags now? Have there been
any use cases discussed already? Is it likely that assignments will be made
soon and is first-com first-serve the right policy for these expected
assignments? Note that such registries can also be created at a later point
when really needed.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 20:42:11 +0000

Hi Mirja, 

On 2/5/18, 8:20 AM, "Mirja Kühlewind" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    
    
    Minor commets:

Sure. 

We didn't have the registries previously and added as the result of another ADs comments. Since the TLV directory is FCFS, it makes sense to use the same allocation policy. 

Thanks,
Acee