[bess] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-05

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ketan,

That solution works for me.

Thanks!
-Mallory

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:09 Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Mallory,
>
> Thanks for your review of the document.
>
> Regarding your comment on the Transposition Scheme, there is no elaborate
> text on it in this document as that is orthogonal to the issues with
> RFC9252 addressed by this document - i.e., there is no issue with the
> transposition scheme as specified in RFC9252. Authors felt it would be
> easier to leave that part out and hence that paragraph in the introduction.
> That said, you have a point that a reader, who is not familiar, may find
> this harder to understand and hence we will add a reference pointer to the
> specific section 4 of RFC9252 on the first use of the term Transposition
> Scheme. This will reflect in the next document update.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:17 PM Mallory Knodel via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
>> Review result: Ready
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.ietf.org_en_group_gen_GenArtFAQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=VaEQx5jB6i77ItUVC7a-5m56viqc1Ebda9FYhkU3VGhwKwru47iSvVuwhWP8JdV-&s=nl3158F7bVoNMnLAjF7oIil3sLJV7sOS0Bpp-DdqL3Q&e=>
>> >.
>
>
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-??
>> Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
>> Review Date: 2025-02-21
>> IETF LC End Date: 2025-03-04
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>
>> Summary: This document updates recommendations "for the signaling and
>> processing of SRv6 SID advertisements for BGP Service routes associated
>> with
>> SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors that support arguments" based on lessons learned
>> from
>> implementations of RFC9252.
>>
>> Major issues: None.
>>
>> Minor issues: It would perhaps help readers if in the introduction to the
>> document that updates RFC9252, the authors quoted one seemingly critical
>> passage, namely the description of the Transposition Scheme:
>>
>>    This later form of encoding is
>>    referred to as the Transposition Scheme, where the SRv6 SID Structure
>>    Sub-Sub-TLV describes the sizes of the parts of the SRv6 SID and also
>>    indicates the offset of the variable part along with its length in
>>    the SRv6 SID value.  The use of the Transposition Scheme is
>>    RECOMMENDED for the specific service encodings that allow it, as
>>    described ...
>>
>> This passage might then be modified in a clearer manner given the goals
>> of the
>> current document. Or perhaps this belongs in Section 4 on backwards
>> compatibility.
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments: None. Well written and straight forward.
>>
>>
>>