[bess] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: (with COMMENT)
Hi Gorry, That bit of detail has been added in the v08 of the draft that was just posted. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-08 Thanks, Ketan On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > On 25/04/2025 15:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > Hi Gorry, > > Thanks for your review. > > Regarding the AL size, the "should" is because in general for SRv6, there > is no restriction on the size of AL (check > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986.html#section-3.1 for details) for > SIDs. However, for this specific case, implementers wanted to indicate > multiple of 8 so as to ensure consistency across implementations and ease > of operations. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > This was only a comment: Please have a think whether some extra detail may > be useful, it would have helped me. > > Gorry > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:58 PM Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: No Objection >> >> 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-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ >> >> >> >> -- >> COMMENT: >> -- >> >> I found no-transport-related concerns in this document. >> >> I have one comment: >> >> “Additionally, as a >>non-zero ARG value is being signaled, the Argument Length (AL) MUST >>be set to the size of the ARG, and the size SHOULD be a multiple of >>8. “ >> - WHY SHOULD? I may have missed, but did not see any reason why the >> length is >> specified this way. - Perhaps it would be useful to note how receivers >> are to >> process an AL size when not a multiple of 8? >> >> >> >> > ___ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
[bess] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: (with COMMENT)
On 25/04/2025 15:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Hi Gorry, Thanks for your review. Regarding the AL size, the "should" is because in general for SRv6, there is no restriction on the size of AL (check https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986.html#section-3.1 for details) for SIDs. However, for this specific case, implementers wanted to indicate multiple of 8 so as to ensure consistency across implementations and ease of operations. Thanks, Ketan This was only a comment: Please have a think whether some extra detail may be useful, it would have helped me. Gorry On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:58 PM Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker wrote: Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: No Objection 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-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ -- COMMENT: -- I found no-transport-related concerns in this document. I have one comment: “Additionally, as a non-zero ARG value is being signaled, the Argument Length (AL) MUST be set to the size of the ARG, and the size SHOULD be a multiple of 8. “ - WHY SHOULD? I may have missed, but did not see any reason why the length is specified this way. - Perhaps it would be useful to note how receivers are to process an AL size when not a multiple of 8? ___ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
[bess] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: (with COMMENT)
Hi Gorry, Thanks for your review. Regarding the AL size, the "should" is because in general for SRv6, there is no restriction on the size of AL (check https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986.html#section-3.1 for details) for SIDs. However, for this specific case, implementers wanted to indicate multiple of 8 so as to ensure consistency across implementations and ease of operations. Thanks, Ketan On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:58 PM Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-06: No Objection > > 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-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ > > > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > I found no-transport-related concerns in this document. > > I have one comment: > > “Additionally, as a >non-zero ARG value is being signaled, the Argument Length (AL) MUST >be set to the size of the ARG, and the size SHOULD be a multiple of >8. “ > - WHY SHOULD? I may have missed, but did not see any reason why the length > is > specified this way. - Perhaps it would be useful to note how receivers are > to > process an AL size when not a multiple of 8? > > > > ___ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
