Thanks, Stefano.
Bruno, at your convenience can you confirm that you're satisfied with the
resolution? Looks OK to me even though the changes don't precisely adhere to
your suggestions ("Link NLRI uses the Protocol-ID value" instead of "Link NLRI
uses the BGP Protocol-ID value"). The rfcdiff is
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-11.txt
--John
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <sprev...@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> John, Bruno,
>
> sorry for having missed that. I’ll resubmit right now. I integrated all
> comments. Regarding the missing "section 3.1" (referring to the isis draft),
> I replaced text with the reference to
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext which defines the bgp-ls tlv for
> advertising the SRGB. I gave this as an example. I also moved
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing into the normative references section.
>
> Thanks.
>
> s.
>
>
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:52 PM, John G.Scudder <j...@juniper.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Authors,
>>
>> I see that yesterday's -10 revision doesn't address Bruno's comments, below.
>> Can you please either update the document if you accept Bruno's suggestions,
>> or otherwise discuss them on the list? We can't declare the WGLC to be
>> satisfactorily finished until this is resolved.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --John
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’ve read the draft, please find below some minor comments:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> §4.3
>>> " * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
>>> advertised by this router using the encodings defined in Section 3.1."
>>>
>>> - Following the recent addition of the SRLB Label Space, I'd rather have
>>> the text explicitly refers to name of that Label space. e.g.
>>> OLD: SID/Label space
>>> NEW: SRGB
>>>
>>> - Which (SRGB) advertisement? I'm assuming the IGP one, but I guess someone
>>> may imagine using the BGP "Originator SRGB TLV". Then what if the node runs
>>> multiple IGP with different SRGB configured?
>>>
>>> - Note that this document has no "Section 3.1". The text seems borrowed
>>> from the IS-IS SR draft, hence may be adding the name of this draft would
>>> just solve the point. (with a normative reference to this IS-IS draft)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> OLD: The Link NLRI uses the new Protocol-ID value (to be assigned by IANA)
>>> proposed NEW: The Link NLRI uses the BGP Protocol-ID (TBD1)
>>>
>>> (“new” may become unspecific 2 years from now)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> One could probably argue that [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] should be a
>>> normative reference.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regards,
>>> --Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:35 AM
>>> To: i...@ietf.org
>>> Cc: 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'; spring@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [spring] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on
>>> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)
>>>
>>> This begins a 2 week IDR WG last call on
>>> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe from (2/15 to 3/1/2017) There
>>> are two implementations describe on the wiki at:
>>> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe%20
>>>
>>> The two implementation are from Cisco IOS-XR release 6.0.2 and Cisco Nexus
>>> Switch N9000/N3000 platforms running NX-OS 7.0(3)I1(1) or greater. The
>>> authors will indicate on the list and in the wiki the following information
>>> :
>>>
>>> 1) Were these implementations separate implementations?
>>> 2) What were the results of the interoperability tests?
>>>
>>> This work is linked to the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe
>>> work in the SPRING WG. Based on the two drafts, the WG should might
>>> consider:
>>> 1) Is there need for this work in deployments in networks/
>>> 2) Is this technically ready for publication?
>>> 3) Does it fit with the spring informational draft?
>>>
>>> For the ease of reference the web references are below:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe/
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe/
>>>
>>> Sue Hares
>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
>>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
>>> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
>>> falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>>> information that may be protected by law;
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>>> delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
>>> modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>>> i...@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
