Re: [Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5139B3A080C; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id czU8krgFss-T; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC8653A07F8; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id nu11so1588105pjb.1; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=S55/8gnM7KvcJqQsFxraRZVD73qlFB2adwVR/ZCZ3ts=; b=uASg3bPZsBgrZmJQXwK7T/LGrybYjboDE0YliP3uB3T8yLAd1GJ4CIgeKgObkTxg39 TEC9QbaUOcQFmWcDx3EnemsPr8CkXb7uA8wfWXoejel2qxuc0qGnUk23HV68Hq1ADhU1 igV+rrehUH2Y8EOR4wUcf5rK7qfV4quDkgpX7ggCZDsfAw4/3EvwezxzPmwJm2d/oq5L kbrIwADVqwYq0aYBdtZ/lXLGPvrW6m9z0mUfJ7fXHJUeUqlKKtU9/QuoDWq0SjRVtTAP 9KGb2ub2fXwb6pYmKVuXBDTVoDhm0SLQw9WQCeNpKjhJ2WIMnwH7asSe1i4tdR85LN9J Zi6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=S55/8gnM7KvcJqQsFxraRZVD73qlFB2adwVR/ZCZ3ts=; b=sgrVNXKYVQs/MhHBofmVtRwyGDgc2Mr40BX17pDFFCqGC8c4LyzEFpz9u29jOMyM9i FxgcfKTxX3d8u0nsPTRoioiCIOJC1lxIQFlf+c+7cDvCpEE4INogDQ1i73jEOoRImus6 EI0SaMNL5EouLzL1AkZBNTW5jJEeCnvy6JAKmpUJ9A3mrlk4RKtwETw6i4u07bZ0hnk1 bTJ1vhqcpUpt9zlRsqJsSuCF+uHOeY/QBqt3z/4BWtQYYNM4jIHS4SYkFM0N0GIKslPC fupCYFyHsvMfGlB33BGmBru0cypLZ9kZNTXuehbLD/XqMspxM56JzvjazxHs8FuYi4CB 6NSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubLde7kNj26CppBbFfL/aurg7aAADdJnYmFxHtn7uRPyzibHv6H U09v9KmeHck3bGN8d6HClcLdjp7Z
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLx4gw+q/zFA5ZvcZb6pKtQppaOoBOm6lxysw6iTeuj7AegN86FH/YNks62tXjyw5eqDRoQMg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a8a:: with SMTP id w10mr5641562plp.259.1587158887466; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w13sm5406076pfn.192.2020.04.17.14.28.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:27:57 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "=?utf-8?Q?<rtg-ads=40ietf.org>?=" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?rtg-dir=40ietf.org?=" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd.all=40ietf.org?=" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd.all@ietf.org>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <64d95dfc-acd3-422f-ae0e-869e0b92bb72@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297AAB4AB@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297AAB4AB@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 64d95dfc-acd3-422f-ae0e-869e0b92bb72@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5e9a1f65_7a6d8d3c_e7ef"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BQtu9bE1av-5L5CsCGTm2DrPp1U>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:28:16 -0000

Hi Mach/Alvaro,

Many thanks for your review.

Please see inline


Have a great weekend and stay safe!

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 17, 2020, 12:38 AM -0700, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>om>, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt
> Reviewer: Mach Chen
> Review Date: April 17, 2020
> IETF LC End Date:
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
>
> Comments:
> This document is clearly written and easy to understand.
>
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
> The Node MSD TLV and Link MSD TLV are designed to be able to carry multiple MSDs. I guess this is designed for future extensibility, where a Node may have multiple types of MSD, right? But for each type, is it allowed to carry multiple instances of MSD-Type/MSD-Value pair or only one instance? For whichever case, there need some text to describe the rule about the sending and receiving procedures. For example, when multiple instances allowed, how does a node decide which instance takes effect; if only one instance allowed and multiple instances received, how to handle this, discard the whole TLV, or only the first instance takes effect and the rest ignored.
>
> Nits:
> 1.
> Section 1,
> s/learn/learns
[jeff] ack
>
> 2.
> Section 3 and Section 4:
> The TLV format of Node/Link MSD is defined as follows:
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Type | Length |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | MSD-Type | MSD-Value | MSD-Type... | MSD-Value... |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Since the MSD-Type/MSD-Value pairs are variable in length, the above definition does not reflect this, suggest to change the figure as below:
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Type | Length |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> // MSD-Type | MSD-Value | MSD-Type... | MSD-Value... //
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[jeff] As Alvaro already explained in his email, BGP-LS is simply the transport here, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8491#section-2 shows the format exactly as you suggested, thanks for that!
I’m with Alvaro - this need not to be done in this document, since it is already done in the IGP RFC.
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>