Hi Michael,
Thank you very much for your review of this draft.We have submitted version -06： URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-06.txtDiff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-06 Please see inline below for our detailed responses.Hope it addresses your concerns — please let us know if any remain. Best regards， Liyan(on behalf of the co-authors) -----邮件原件-----发件人: Michael Richardson via Datatracker <[email protected]>发送时间: 2026年8月17日 5:31收件人: [email protected]抄送: [email protected] [email protected]主题: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-05 early Rtgdir reviewDocument: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-idTitle: Advertisement of Remote Interface Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle MembersReviewer: Michael RichardsonReview result: ReadyRtgDir review: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-05HelloI have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-foo-name/The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.<case 2> As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments.For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDirDocument: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-05Reviewer: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Review Date: 2026-08-16.Intended Status: Standards TrackSummary:Choose from this list... This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.Comments:The document seems quite readable and is quite clear as to it39s purpose.I thought that LAG members could terminate on physically distinct chassis, and I39m unclear if that is important for TE. The two different L2 switches could have different congestion situations? [Liyan:] The advertisement mechanism is independent of physical deployment — it applies uniformly regardless of whether LAG members terminate on the same chassis or distinct chassis. In -06, we have enhanced Section 2 to better articulate why knowledge of bundle member connectivity is essential for TE applications. We hope this point is now clearer in the updated text. I39m unclear if the OSPF and IS-IS extensions are between R2 and R3, or if they are advertised by R1 and R2 individually on each link.I do not think the later, because LACP/LAG operates below IP, and so the routers won39t actually see the LAG. And section 7 talks about using LLDP. [Liyan:] You are correct that the advertisement is not performed individually on each L2 member link, since IGPs do not operate directly on those links. In version -06, Section 3 now explicitly states that the routers at both ends of the LAG (R1 and R2) each independently advertise their local member information along with the corresponding remote interface identifiers via their respective IGP instances. Is there any expectation that R1 will identify/number the members the same was R2/R3? It seems surprising that section 7 is so vague about how the links are discovered. [Liyan:] In version -06, we have substantially revised section 7 to provide clearer guidance, including a RECOMMENDED method using LLDP (Port ID TLV), alternative methods (IEEE 802.1AX/LACP and manual configuration), and a validation mechanism to ensure consistency of identifier pairs. Regarding the numbering question, each router independently manages its own local interface identifier space — the pairing relationship is established by exchanging Local IDs as Remote IDs between neighbors. In addition, Section 3 clarifies that only the LAG endpoint routers (R1 and R2) are involved in advertising this information. Nits:* a sentences ends with ., and then have no space after the dot. ("purposes.For"* "As always," do not really contribute to the Security Considerations. [Liyan:] Both have been corrected in version -06.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
