Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-04-22 Thread Alvaro Retana
On April 22, 2021 at 7:26:57 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: > I have posted an updated version of the draft that has the new > registries defined for all flags fields defined in it. Thanks Peter! I've started the IETF LC. Alvaro. ___ Lsr mailing list

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-04-22 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Alvaro, I have posted an updated version of the draft that has the new registries defined for all flags fields defined in it. thanks, Peter On 09/04/2021 22:54, Alvaro Retana wrote: Peter: I’m ok with the text below. Thanks! Alvaro. On April 9, 2021 at 4:12:43 AM, Peter Psenak

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-04-09 Thread Alvaro Retana
Peter: I’m ok with the text below. Thanks! Alvaro. On April 9, 2021 at 4:12:43 AM, Peter Psenak (ppse...@cisco.com (mailto:ppse...@cisco.com)) wrote: > > 268 In cases where a locator advertisement is received in both a Prefix > > 269 Reachability TLV and an SRv6 Locator TLV - (e.g. prefix,

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-04-09 Thread Peter Psenak
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

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-04-08 Thread Alvaro Retana
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

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-04-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Alvaro, please see inline (##PP3): On 30/03/2021 19:44, Alvaro Retana wrote: On March 25, 2021 at 6:03:53 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: Peter: Hi! I have some comments (see below) -- nothing major.  I look forward to -12. Thanks! Alvaro. ... Just one high-level comment: It is not

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-31 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Les, On 31/03/2021 07:01, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: Alvaro/Peter - In regards to: ... 906 12.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs 908 This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS 909 TLV Codepoints Registry to control the assignment of sub-TLV types 910 for the

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Alvaro/Peter - In regards to: > ... > > 906 12.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs > > > > 908 This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS > > 909 TLV Codepoints Registry to control the assignment of sub-TLV types > > 910 for the SID Sub-TLVs specified in this document -

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-30 Thread Alvaro Retana
On March 25, 2021 at 6:03:53 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: Peter: Hi! I have some comments (see below) -- nothing major.  I look forward to -12. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > >>> Just one high-level comment: It is not clear to me why all the > >>> behaviors from rfc8986 are not covered in this

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-25 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Alvaro, please see inline (##PP2): On 16/03/2021 21:33, Alvaro Retana wrote: On March 11, 2021 at 5:46:51 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: Peter: Hi! thanks for the review, please see inline (##PP): It looks like you didn't get the whole review (Outlook bug).  Take a look at it here:

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-16 Thread Alvaro Retana
On March 11, 2021 at 5:46:51 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: Peter: Hi! > thanks for the review, please see inline (##PP): It looks like you didn't get the whole review (Outlook bug).  Take a look at it here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/a4a4I4fP73DyfKsdKnRw_tRuStQ/ ... > > Just one

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-12 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Thanks for your review and comments Bruno and Peter for quick resolution. Acee On 3/12/21, 9:20 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi Peter, > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:13 PM > > Hi Bruno, > > please see

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-12 Thread bruno.decraene
Hi Peter, > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:13 PM > > Hi Bruno, > > please see inline: > > On 12/03/2021 11:39, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Peter, Alvaro > > > >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-12 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Bruno, please see inline: On 12/03/2021 11:39, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, Alvaro From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:47 AM [...] ... 221 4.3.  Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type 223   The Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type specifies the

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-12 Thread bruno.decraene
Peter, Alvaro > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:47 AM [...] > > ... > > 221 4.3.  Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type > > > > 223   The Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type specifies the maximum number > of SIDs > > 224   that can be included as part of the

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-03-11 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Alvaro, thanks for the review, please see inline (##PP): On 26/02/2021 19:19, Alvaro Retana wrote: Dear authors: Please find below my review of this document.  I appreciate you and the WG discussing the details, but there is more work needed to be done before starting the IETF LC (details

[Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

2021-02-26 Thread Alvaro Retana
Dear authors: Please find below my review of this document.  I appreciate you and the WG discussing the details, but there is more work needed to be done before starting the IETF LC (details inline). Just one high-level comment: It is not clear to me why all the behaviors from rfc8986 are not