Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-17
Hi Yingzhen,
Your responses are good to me. Thank you!
Best regards,
Shuping
From: Yingzhen Qu [mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 5:49 PM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-17
Hi Shuping,
Thanks for the review. Please see my response below inline.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:37 AM Shuping Peng via Datatracker
mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 2023-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-30
Intended Status: Standards
Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.
Major Issues:
"No major issues found."
Minor Issues:
1. Page 3, when configure adjacency-sid, do we need to indicate the neighbor's
systemid or IP in order to differentiate the different neighbors in the case of
having multiple neighbors?
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
/isis:interface:
+--rw segment-routing
+--rw adjacency-sid
+--rw adj-sids* [value]
| +--rw value-type? enumeration
| +--rw value uint32
| +--rw protected?boolean
[Yingzhen]: thanks for catching this. We didn't consider LAN interfaces, will
fix this in the next version.
2. Page 4, since LFA, RLFA and TI-LFA are the three algorithm for computing
backup paths, why they are not in sibling relationship?
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
/isis:interface/isis:fast-reroute:
+--rw ti-lfa {ti-lfa}?
+--rw enable? boolean
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
/isis:interface/isis:fast-reroute/isis:lfa/isis:remote-lfa:
+--rw use-segment-routing-path? boolean {remote-lfa-sr}?
[Yingzhen]: the assumption here is that LFA is preferred when available.
Although in the ti-lfa draft, it says that LFA may not be preferred over
ti-lfa, however if there is LFA route available, the chance of it also being
post-convergence path is very high. I'll check with the ti-lfa authors and some
implementations.
3. Page 4, the keys of the global-block and local-block are not clear.
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:database
/isis:levels/isis:lsp/isis:router-capabilities:
+--ro sr-capability
| +--ro sr-capability
| | +--ro sr-capability-bits* identityref
| +--ro global-blocks
| +--ro global-block* []
|+--ro range-size?uint32
|+--ro sid-sub-tlv
| +--ro sid? uint32
+--ro sr-algorithms
| +--ro sr-algorithm* uint8
+--ro local-blocks
| +--ro local-block* []
| +--ro range-size?uint32
| +--ro sid-sub-tlv
|+--ro sid? uint32
+--ro srms-preference
+--ro preference? uint8
[Yingzhen]: these are read-only data, so key is not a must.
4. Currently there is no configuration node for the micro loop avoidance
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop/),
any thoughts or plan on it?
[Yingzhen]: we can do an augmentation when the mentioned draft is ready to
progress.
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-17
Hi Shuping,
Thanks for the review. Please see my response below inline.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:37 AM Shuping Peng via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Shuping Peng
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts
> as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing
> ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion
> or by
> updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang
> Reviewer: Shuping Peng
> Review Date: 2023-11-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-30
> Intended Status: Standards
>
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved
> before publication.
>
> Major Issues:
> "No major issues found."
>
> Minor Issues:
> 1. Page 3, when configure adjacency-sid, do we need to indicate the
> neighbor's
> systemid or IP in order to differentiate the different neighbors in the
> case of
> having multiple neighbors?
>
> augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
> /rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
> /isis:interface:
> +--rw segment-routing
>+--rw adjacency-sid
> +--rw adj-sids* [value]
> | +--rw value-type? enumeration
> | +--rw value uint32
> | +--rw protected?boolean
>
[Yingzhen]: thanks for catching this. We didn't consider LAN interfaces,
will fix this in the next version.
>
> 2. Page 4, since LFA, RLFA and TI-LFA are the three algorithm for computing
> backup paths, why they are not in sibling relationship?
>
> augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
> /rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
> /isis:interface/isis:fast-reroute:
> +--rw ti-lfa {ti-lfa}?
>+--rw enable? boolean
> augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
> /rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
> /isis:interface/isis:fast-reroute/isis:lfa/isis:remote-lfa:
> +--rw use-segment-routing-path? boolean {remote-lfa-sr}?
>
> [Yingzhen]: the assumption here is that LFA is preferred when
available. Although in the ti-lfa draft, it says that LFA may not be
preferred over ti-lfa, however if there is LFA route available, the chance
of it also being post-convergence path is very high. I'll check with the
ti-lfa authors and some implementations.
3. Page 4, the keys of the global-block and local-block are not clear.
>
> augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
> /rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:database
> /isis:levels/isis:lsp/isis:router-capabilities:
> +--ro sr-capability
> | +--ro sr-capability
> | | +--ro sr-capability-bits* identityref
> | +--ro global-blocks
> | +--ro global-block* []
> |+--ro range-size?uint32
> |+--ro sid-sub-tlv
> | +--ro sid? uint32
> +--ro sr-algorithms
> | +--ro sr-algorithm* uint8
> +--ro local-blocks
> | +--ro local-block* []
> | +--ro range-size?uint32
> | +--ro sid-sub-tlv
> |+--ro sid? uint32
> +--ro srms-preference
>+--ro preference? uint8
>
[Yingzhen]: these are read-only data, so key is not a must.
>
> 4. Currently there is no configuration node for the micro loop avoidance
> (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop/
> ),
> any thoughts or plan on it?
>
> [Yingzhen]: we can do an augmentation when the mentioned draft is ready to
progress.
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-17
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 2023-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-30
Intended Status: Standards
Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.
Major Issues:
"No major issues found."
Minor Issues:
1. Page 3, when configure adjacency-sid, do we need to indicate the neighbor's
systemid or IP in order to differentiate the different neighbors in the case of
having multiple neighbors?
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
/isis:interface:
+--rw segment-routing
+--rw adjacency-sid
+--rw adj-sids* [value]
| +--rw value-type? enumeration
| +--rw value uint32
| +--rw protected?boolean
2. Page 4, since LFA, RLFA and TI-LFA are the three algorithm for computing
backup paths, why they are not in sibling relationship?
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
/isis:interface/isis:fast-reroute:
+--rw ti-lfa {ti-lfa}?
+--rw enable? boolean
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces
/isis:interface/isis:fast-reroute/isis:lfa/isis:remote-lfa:
+--rw use-segment-routing-path? boolean {remote-lfa-sr}?
3. Page 4, the keys of the global-block and local-block are not clear.
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:database
/isis:levels/isis:lsp/isis:router-capabilities:
+--ro sr-capability
| +--ro sr-capability
| | +--ro sr-capability-bits* identityref
| +--ro global-blocks
| +--ro global-block* []
|+--ro range-size?uint32
|+--ro sid-sub-tlv
| +--ro sid? uint32
+--ro sr-algorithms
| +--ro sr-algorithm* uint8
+--ro local-blocks
| +--ro local-block* []
| +--ro range-size?uint32
| +--ro sid-sub-tlv
|+--ro sid? uint32
+--ro srms-preference
+--ro preference? uint8
4. Currently there is no configuration node for the micro loop avoidance
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop/),
any thoughts or plan on it?
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
