Dear Jim,
Thank you very much for the review. We addressed your comments together with
some minor editorial nits from Med in version -09 which just has been
published. Below inline the feedback
Best wishes
Thomas
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/
There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-09
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-09
JG> The above needs to be fixed. OSPFv3 is not [RFC9352] and I assume that the
reference should point to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/,
ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions is an out-of-date reference as it is now
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352, and RFC 9252 is "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)" that provides protocol extensions
for SRv6-based BGP services.
TG> Thanks. References corrected.
JG> Section 4 of the referenced draft does not define new endpoint
JG> behaviors for SRv6; the document defines new flavors for existing behaviors.
TG> Correct. Based on the endpoint behaviors the encoding of the segment list
can be deducted.
We adjusted the wording
From
The SID endpoint behaviors described in section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] determine wherever the segment
list is compressed or not.
To
The SR Endpoint Flavors, described in section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] defines new flavors for SID
endpoint behaviors, and determine wherever the segment list encoding
is compressed, along with the flavor.
JG> The above description is not technically accurate. While section 2
JG> of RFC8754 does define the SRH, the 'Segments Left' field of the SRH is
actually defined in Section 4.4 of RFC8200
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200#section-4.4) and RFC8754 points to that
reference. Section 5.7 of this document should also point to the correct
reference.
TG> Well spotted. We adjusted the wording as following to include both
TG> references in the right context:
srhSegmentsIPv6Left
8-bit unsigned integer defining the number of segments remaining
to reach the end of the segment list from the SRH, as specified by
the "Segments Left" field in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200] and
mentioned part of the SRH in Section 2 of [RFC8754]).
-Original Message-
From: Jim Guichard via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 3:04 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org;
opsawg@ietf.org; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Subject: Jim Guichard's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-08: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-08: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/
--
DISCUSS:
--
Section 1:
Also, three routing protocol extensions, OSPFv3 [RFC9352], IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] and BGP Prefix Segment
Identifiers(Prefix-SIDs) [RFC9252]
The above needs to be fixed. OSPFv3 is not [RFC9352] and I assume that the
reference should point to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/,
ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions is an out-of-date reference as it is now
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352, and RFC 9252 is "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)" that provides protocol extensions
for SRv6-based BGP services.
Section 3:
srhSegmentsIPv6Left
8-bit unsigned integer defining the number of segments remaining
to reach the end of the segment list as defined in Section 2 of
[RFC8754].
The above description is not technically accurate. While section 2 of RFC8754
does define the SRH, the 'Segments Left' field of the SRH is actually defined
in Section 4.4 of RFC8200 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200#section-4.4)
and RFC8754 points to that reference. Section 5.7 of this document should also
point to the correct reference.
Section 5.9.1:
| TBD15 | OSPFv3 | [RFC-to-be], |
| | Segment Routing| |
+---++---+
| TBD1
