Hi Alvaro,
please see inline (##PP):
On 09/04/2021 00:17, Alvaro Retana wrote:
Peter:
Hi!
I looked at -12.
I have a couple of nits/minor comments below. There's only one
significant one related to the information that must be shared between
the Prefix Reachability TLV and the SRv6 Locator TLV: it is currently
phrased as an example.
We're also waiting of the resolution of the registry thread. If that
results in not needed to add registries then you can address the
comments below with any other IETF LC comments. Otherwise I'll wait
for an update.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
[Line numbers from idnits.]
...
16 Abstract
...
25 This documents updates [RFC7370] by modifying an existing registry.
[minor] s/[RFC7370]/RFC 7370
No references in the Abstract.
##PP
done
...
102 1. Introduction
...
137 This documents updates [RFC7370] by modifying an existing registry
138 Section 11.1.2.
[nit] s/Section 11.1.2/(Section 11.1.2)
##PP
done
...
192 4.1. Maximum Segments Left MSD Type
194 The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type specifies the maximum value of the
195 "Segments Left" field [RFC8754] in the SRH of a received packet
196 before applying the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.
[minor] s/specifies/signals
##PP
done
...
229 4.4. Maximum End D MSD Type
231 The Maximum End D MSD Type specifies the maximum number of SIDs
232 present in an SRH when performing decapsulation. These includes, but
233 not limited to, End.DX6, End.DT4, End.DT46, End with USD, End.X with
234 USD as defined in [RFC8986]).
[nit] s/[RFC8986])/[RFC8986]
##PP
done
...
243 5. SRv6 SIDs and Reachability
...
263 Locators associated with algorithm 0 and 1 (for all supported
264 topologies) SHOULD be advertised in a Prefix Reachability TLV (236 or
265 237) so that legacy routers (i.e., routers which do NOT support SRv6)
266 will install a forwarding entry for algorithm 0 and 1 SRv6 traffic.
[minor] s/NOT/not
This is not an rfc2119 keyword -- and someone else will ask for the same thing.
##PP
done
268 In cases where a locator advertisement is received in both a Prefix
269 Reachability TLV and an SRv6 Locator TLV - (e.g. prefix, prefix-
270 length, MTID all being equal and Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV),
271 the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred when
272 installing entries in the forwarding plane. This is to prevent
273 inconsistent forwarding entries between SRv6 capable and SRv6
274 incapable routers. Such preference of Prefix Reachability
275 advertisement does not have any impact on the rest of the data
276 advertised in the SRv6 Locator TLV.
[major] "e.g. prefix, prefix-length, MTID all being equal and
Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV"
This text should not be an example because those are the fields that
should match. Please make it clear: "The locator advertisement is
both TLVs is considered the same when the following fliends match..."
(or something like that with better words).
what about:
"In case where the same prefix, with the same prefix-length, MTID and
algorithm is received in both a Prefix Reachability TLV and an SRv6
Locator TLV the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred.."
...
866 11.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs
868 This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS
869 TLV Codepoints Registry to control the assignment of sub-TLV types
870 for the SID Sub-TLVs specified in this document - Section 7.2,
871 Section 8.1, Section 8.2. The suggested name of the new registry is
872 "sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 End SID (5) (sub-TLV of TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236
873 and 237) and SRv6 End.X SID (43)/SRv6 LAN End.X SID (44) (sub-TLVs of
874 TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 and 237)". The registration procedure is
875 "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. Guidance for the Designated
876 Experts is provided in [RFC7370]The following assignments are made by
877 this document:
[nit] s/[RFC7370]The/[RFC7370]. The
##PP
done
879 Type Description Encoding
880 Reference
881 ---------------------------------------------------------
882 0 Reserved
883 1 SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV Section 9
884 2-255 Unassigned
[major] The reference should be "[This Document]".
##PP
done
thanks,
Peter
[End]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
