Dear Authors, WG Chairs, et al.,
I hope I'm not too late with my comments and questions on the document.
Please kindly consider them as WG LC comments:
- I have a question regarding the following pseudo-code:
S08. max_LE = (Hdr Ext Len / 2) - 1
S09. If ((Last Entry > max_LE) or (Segments Left > (Last Entry+1)) {
S10. Send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the Source Address,
Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered),
Pointer set to the Segments Left field.
Interrupt packet processing and discard the packet.
S11. }
According to RFC 8200, Hdr Ext Len is the length of the extension header in
8-octet units, not including the first 8 octets. Thus, as I understand,
max_LE is the length in 8-octet units of half of the extension header less
one. On the other hand, Last Entry and Segments Left are indices. Hence my
question, What is being compared in line S09 ( Last Entry > max_LE)? Length
and index? If the goal is to use Hdr Ext Len to calculate the number of
entries in the header, then what assumption is used in S08? Is it that the
entry's length is always and only 128 bits, i.e. 16 octets? I believe that
using such an assumption is too narrowing and limiting to SRH.
- Another question is to Section 6.3. What value do you see in this
section? I've noticed that draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam is in the
Informational References section. I agree with that for the first sentence
in the section. But I believe that the second sentence that refers to the
new O-bit and OAM behaviors defined in draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam
requires it to be moved into the Normative References section. Unless
you'll decide to remove the section altogether.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:15 AM <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote:
> Hello SPRING,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
>
>
>
> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version, and
> send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
>
>
>
> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not
> duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are only
> spring specifics.
>
>
>
> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on
> the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
>
> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and that
> other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into parallel
> independent discussions)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> i...@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
