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

[Ahmed Bashandy <[e-mail]>]

Thanks a lot for the review

The document specifies externally visible behavior that must be 
implemented by routers, otherwise SR and LDP routers cannot talk to each 
other. For example, section 4.2.2  specifies preference rules. Another 
example is the last two paragraphs in section 4.2.1. Hence I do not 
think it can be informational. A third example is section 4.2 which 
requires the existence of one SRMS in order for SR-only to speak to 
LDP-only routers

But I agree that a more crisp description of SRMS is warranted. I will 
add a section describing the SRMS functionality and specifying what to 
do when receiving both prefix-SID sub-tlv and SRMS advertisements in the 
next version, which I plan to send out in the next few days


Ahmed



On 5/14/18 1:01 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
> 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:
>
>