Subject: [Idr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:55:29 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-14: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(The document has been updated since I made my review notes. Apologies if any
of my comments no longer apply.)

Substantive:

- 1: I agree with Alissa's comment about finding a less controversial example
than DPI.

-9: last paragraph: Can you offer a citation for the "standard BGP mechansism
(filters)"? I assume they are in one of the documents cited in the first
paragraph of this section, but it would help to cite the specific document and
section.

Editorial and nits:

- Abstract and section 1: Both are missing an article (probably "The")  before
"Segment Routing (SR) architecture"

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:36:43 +0000

Hi Ben, 

On 2/7/18, 5:55 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    Substantive:

It seems most service functions are controversial to at least somebody. I've changed it to "give the packet prioritized queuing".  

These mechanisms are not standardized. I've changed "standard" to "common". 

    Editorial and nits:

Added. 

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:41:18 +0000

See one inline. 

On 2/8/18, 12:36 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Ben, 

        

        

        Substantive:

Given that some may question this action being a true service function and, at the suggestion Alvaro, I've removed the example completely.

Thanks,
Acee

    

        Editorial and nits:

    Added. 
    
    Thanks,
    Acee

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:46:10 -0600

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> It seems most service functions are controversial to at least somebody. I've changed it to "give the packet prioritized queuing”.

That WFM. (If that’s controversial to someone else, I will leave it to them to complain :-) )

> These mechanisms are not standardized. I've changed "standard" to "common”.

That could use a sentence or two to elaborate. The fact that these common mechanisms are not standardized seems worthy of more than a passing mention.

[…]

Thanks!

Ben.