Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023)

Hi Nat，

Thanks a lot for your support and retailed review!
Please see my reply with [Yao]. And based on your comments, we've submmitted a new version to refine the wording for better alignment and readability.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-07.html 
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-07

Thanks,
Yao	

Original

From: NatKao <pyxislx@gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>;
Cc: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年10月12日 18:09
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023)

Hi, All.

I support the adoption for this draft.
These segment types are useful for networks to identify specific
Adj-SIDs using alternate algorithms.

The alignment suggestions:
-For all segment types defined in this document, it might be better to
change "optional Algorithm" to "optional SR Algorithm" for better
alignment with RFC9256 & draft-ietf-idr-sr-segtypes-ext.
[Yao] Yes,  "optional SR Algorithm" is better.

-In Sec. 3.1, is the paragraph "Other fields have the same ..."
redundant? It seems that all fields are defined already.
[Yao] It has been deleted in the refined version.

-In Sec. 3.1 for "Local Interface ID": it should be better to
reference RFC7752 instead of RFC8664 in this section.
 (ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Nfa1-xwiwcysW-oTSRq0Z5BCWyQ/ )
-In Sec. 3.3, shouldn't the reference for "Local/Remote Interface ID"
be RFC7752 instead of RFC8402?
[Yao] Both references have been changed, thanks.

-I knew some terms don't align well between

draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext and RFC9256(after -04 of
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy)
However, these terms now appear in the same document, so it's better
to unify them for readability.
 *Sec. 3.1: "IPv4 Address", "IPv4 Prefix Address", and "IPv4 Node Address"
 *Sec. 3.2: "Local IPv4 Address"/"IPv4 Local Address" & "Remote IPv4
Address"/"IPv4 Remote Address"
 *Sec. 3.3/3.4: "IPv6 Prefix Address"/"IPv6 Local Node Address"/"Local
Prefix"/"Local IPv6 Address"
     & "IPv6 Remote Node Address"/"Remote Address"/"Remote IPv6 Address"

[Yao] 
*Sec. 3.1: The term "IPv4 Node Address" is used in the new version.
*Sec. 3.2: "Local IPv4 Address" and "Remote IPv4 Address" are preferred 
*Sec. 3.3: "IPv6 Node Address" and "IPv6 Local/Remote Node Address" are used.
*Sec. 3.4: "IPv6 Addresses"/"Local IPv6 Address"/"Remote IPv6 Address" are preferred.

Thanks
Nat

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:33 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2-week WG adoption call for
>
> draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05
>
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr/)
>
>
>
> In your comments, please indicate
>
> “support” or “no support”.
>
>
>
> Please also consider the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1) Are these new segment types are useful for networks
>
> Using alternate algorithms?
>
>
>
> 2) This draft will need to align with the
>
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
> split into  draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
> and draft-ietf-idr-sr-segtypes-ext-01.
>
>
>
> Do you see any issues with this alignment?
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr