Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for checking Sue. Hope the 2.3 text will be fixed in the next rev.

Regards
Suresh

On Apr 5, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:

Suresh:

Thank you for catching these errors.  See my comments below.

Summary:
Section 2.3 (good catch).
Section 4 and 6 - I think the document represents the WG consensus.  I will
review the emails, WG documents, and contact previous chairs.

Susan Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:08 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs-chairs@ietf.org>; shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>;
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model@ietf.org>
Subject: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 2.3.

Regarding the OSPF route for 2001:DB8::1/32

Did you mean 2001:DB8::1/128 for the host route? If not, this example is
wrong since 2001:DB8::1/32 expands to 2001:DB8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:1/32
->
2001:DB8::/32 as the route

Sue: Yes - this is an error.

* Figure 4.

Shouldn't the tunnel-encap and tunnel-decap also loop the packet back into
nexthop processing just like the derived nexthops do?

Suresh - I need to check the email list archives and get back to you on this
point.  My recollection was that there was a case where things  people did
not want to automatically loop this  back. However, I cannot bring the
discussion of 3.5 years ago to mind. I will take this as an action item as a
reviewer to try to recreate the discussion.   Thank you for mentioning this
point. It is important to clarify in either case.

* Section 6

I would have expected the match type to have some indication about whether
it requires an exact match or LPM (e.g. A MAC route uses an exact match but
an
IPv6 route uses LPM). Has the WG discussed this?

The short answer is yes, extensive in early interims, list discussions and
in session.  Can you provide more depth to your questions.  For the early
discussions, I may need to query Alia Atlas and Jeff Haas (previous chairs)
to get the institutional memory on this topic.  (One of the reason I really
want to have this document discussed with Alia Atlas as AD0.

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs