Hi Ben, Acee,
On 31/10/18 02:16 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 03:33:21PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Les,
On 10/30/18, 11:15 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote:
Acee -
> > Section 3.2
> >
> > "When a router receives multiple overlapping ranges, it MUST
> > conform to the procedures defined in
> > [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]."
> >
> > It would be useful to include a section pointer here. I think
your referring
> > to Section 2.3 where the router ignores the range? Is it likely
that will
> > change to something other than "ignore?" If not, maybe it's just
worth
> > mentioning that here.
>
> ##PP
> I don't think it is good to specify the behavior which is described
> somewhere else. Regarding the section, the
> ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls is still being worked on and the
> section may changes. We used the same text in OSPFv2 and ISIS SR
drafts.
> I would like to be consistent here.
>
> Given that this is a normative reference, I don't think it would create
too
> much of a dependency to include the section in the reference. We've had a
> protracted discussion (1-2 years) on the whole SID overlap topic in
SPRING
> and I believe we've finally come up with behavior and the specification
of
> such behavior with which everyone agree (or at least doesn't strongly
> disagree).
>
[Les:] I strongly agree with Peter (and disagree with you).
Why would we want to risk having an incorrect section reference to a
document which is still being revised? This needlessly introduces a dependency
such that if the section numbering changes in the SR-MPLS draft we would then
have to update the dependent document(s).
Note this has nothing to do with the SID overlap discussion itself. The
compelling reason to NOT discuss this in the IGP documents but simply refer to
the document that defines the solution is so that whatever the outcome in
SPRING the IGP documents do not also have to be changed.
While I don't feel as strongly as either of you, this could improve the
readability. For example, if you read RFC 8362 you'll see that I have referred
extensively to sections in RFC 5340. I may be overoptimistic but I'm hoping we
are finally done with the SR-MPLS draft as it is blocking all our LSR SR
documents.
I also agree that specific section references can (in general) aid
readability. And there's always "[RFC Editor: please check with authors
during AUTH48 that the section reference remains correct]"; we've done
essentially that on a document I was shepherding in the past.
ok, added the section reference.
thanks,
Peter
-Benjamin
.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
