Re: [bess] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-12: (with COMMENT)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your review and comments/inputs. We are in discussion with John
to address his concerns (some of which are shared by you).

Thanks,
Ketan


On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:56 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-12: 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-srv6-services/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Having received a response to my DISCUSS, it's apparently common practice
> in
> this area to have routers be non-interoperable without a priori knowledge
> of
> neighbor capabilities. I still support John Scudder's second DISCUSS, but
> if
> he's happy, I'm happy.
>
> This document was very difficult to follow without a thorough grounding in
> the
> references, but I managed to have some comments anyway:
>
> - I support John Scudder's second DISCUSS.
>
> - Please expand VRF, SLA, RIB, NLRI, and all other acronyms on first use.
>
> (3.2.1) "      The Transposition Offset MUST be less than LBL+LNL+FL+AL
>
>       The sum of Transposition Offset and Transposition Length MUST be
>       less than LBL+LNL+FL+AL"
>
> The second condition makes the first redundant for all Transposition
> Length >=
> 0! It makes me think there's a typo.
>
> (5) and (6) "The SRv6 Service SID SHOULD be routable within the AS of the
> egress
>    PE"
>
> SHOULD? Under what circumstances would it be OK for it not to be routable?
> [I
> see Alvaro also commented on this, but I'd like to call out that Sec 6
> does the
> same thing]
>
>
>
>