Re: [Gen-art] [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11

Joel -

I don’t fully understand the rest of your comment then. You said:

" And that document does appear to define the  SRMS."

(where "that document" refers to draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution).

But the conflict resolution document never defined an SRMS - it merely described how SRMS advertisements were used in the context of conflict resolution.
So if you are unsatisfied with the "SRMS definition" in ldp-interop draft I think you need to be more clear as to what you think is lacking.

I leave it to the draft authors to resolve this issue with you.

    Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:16 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Joel Halpern
> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-
> routing-ldp-interop-11
> 
> Thanks Les.  I wondered if that were the case.
> 
> Looking again at the draft, the problem then is that section 4.2 of the subject
> draft is not a normative definition of an SRMS.  It states the general
> functionality, and then provides an example of how it would work in the
> given scenario.
> 
> If the text were enhanced to be an effective normative definition of an
> SRMS, then that would also resolve the quesiton of the intended status of
> the draft.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 5/14/18 4:12 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > Joel -
> >
> > I am not an author of this draft - but I am an author on the referenced IS-IS
> draft - which I assume is one of the drafts mentioned in  your comment:
> >
> >>      Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point
> to
> >>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as
> the
> >>      defining source for the SRMS.
> >
> > The IGP document references in the ldp-interop draft are stale. Newer
> versions of the IGP drafts have been published and they no longer reference
> draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution - a draft which is no longer active.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> >      Les
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
> >> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:01 PM
> >> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> >> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org;
> >> spring@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [spring] Genart last call review of
> >> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
> >> ldp-interop-11
> >>
> >> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> >> Review result: Ready with Issues
> >>
> >> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >>
> >> Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
> >> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> >> Review Date: 2018-05-14
> >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24
> >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >>
> >> Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC.
> >> The question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed
> >> Standards track RFC is one that the ADs should examine.
> >>
> >> Major issues:
> >>      This document is quite readable, and quite useful.  If my reading below
> >>      (minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine.
> >>      However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS.  Rather,
> it
> >>      describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP
> >> integration and
> >>      migration.  As such, this seems to me to be a really good Informational
> >>      Document.
> >>
> >> Minor issues:
> >>      Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping
> >>      Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point
> to
> >>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as
> the
> >>      defining source for the SRMS.  And that document does appear to
> >> define the
> >>      SRMS.
> >>
> >> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spring mailing list
> >> spring@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring