Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Peter Psenak Thu, 08 Oct 2020 06:38:34 -0700

Hi Chris,

please see inline:

On 02/10/2020 12:32, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signaturewrote:

Thanks for the update, a couple issues remain.

[ ] 7.1 and 8.1

The reserved bits for "SRv6 Locator TLV" and "SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV" are
defined differently (and probably incorrectly) than the other reserved bits.
Reserved bits "MUST" be set to zero, not "SHOULD", I believe.


fixed.


[ ] 11.  Implementation Status

I know you mentioned that the section should be removed, but how about adding a note to 
the editor in the next revision e.g., "RFC Ed.: Please remove this section prior to 
publication"?


done


[ ] 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). In particular there is no guidance.


I have modified the section 12.5.


It looks like there is more discussion from Joel on this draft, so I will hold 
off on submission for that to resolve.

I have removed the END.T in the latest version. The discussion with Joelis closed.


thanks,
Peter


Thanks,
Chris.

On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 
wrote:

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


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Reply via email to