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

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Suresh: 

On WG discussions, 

LPM = Longest prefix match?   If so, LPM was discussed. 

I will follow-up with the authors on resolving this in section 6.  Thanks for catching this error. 

Cheerily, Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:08 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; Susan Hares; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: 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

* Figure 4.

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

* 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?