Hi Chris,
thanks for your comments.
Please see inline (##PP):
On 18/09/2020 16:08, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature
wrote:
During my review and while doing the Shepherd writeup for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ I came up
with the following comments:
4.3 - Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type:
- what is the default if not advertised?
##PP
added "or no value is advertised" as for other MSD types.
6. Advertising Anycast Property
Should "Locator that is advertised..." be:
"An SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?
or:
"A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?
##PP
fixed.
7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV Format
The R fields and their handling, are not defined.
##PP
added
8. Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs
"must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""?
##PP
I replaced with:
Certain SRv6 Endpoint behaviors
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] are associated with a
particular adjacency.
8.1. SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV
"Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match
##PP
fixed.
8.2. SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV
I'm sympathetic to Bruno's comment, and so I think it would be better to say:
Diagram: "System ID (1-6 octets)" and in text:
"6 octets" -> "System ID: 1-6 octets"
I see no reason to mess with this even if the commonly-implemented value is 6 at
this point. IS-IS implementations that only support 6 octets are free to only
support 6 in this sub-TLV as well. They won't be talking with other IS-IS
routers that are configured to have a non-6 octet system ID value. What other
extension RFCs may or may-not do WRT this doesn't really matter I think.
##PP
I have updated the text to match what is being used in RFC8667, section
2.2.2
"Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match
##PP
fixed
11. Implementation Status
Does this section need a "RFC Ed.: Please Remove prior to publications"? It
seems pretty wrong to document current status of implementations permanently in
an Standards Track RFC.
##PP
yes this section will be removed prior to publication. This is a
standard procedure we follow.
12. IANA Considerations
An odd space between "sub- TLV".
##PP
fixed
12.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs
This section needs to better conform to registry creation standards (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126).
##PP
I updated the IANA section format similar to RFC8667.
ID-NITS:
There are 19 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 5 characters in excess of 72.
##PP
fixed.
References:
Normative:
Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header
##PP
fixed.
Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
##PP
Whenever the new version of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extension is
published it picks the latest version, but as these drafts keep changing
the reference may get out of date quickly.
Informative:
Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing
##PP
fixed
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
