[Idr] Re: draft-ietf-idr-cpr-07 revisions/replied needed before publication

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, 

Thanks for letting us know the draft is approved. We noticed the recent comments during IETF last call & IESG review and will make an update to address them soon. 

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 10:59 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Hares Susan <[e-mail]>
> Subject: draft-ietf-idr-cpr-07 revisions/replied needed before publication
> 
> Hi Authors (and cc WG, shepherd),
> 
> Your document has been approved for publication, congratulations. Before I
> send it to the RFC Editor, I’d like to ask you to consider the comments you
> received during IETF Last Call and IESG review. You can update the document,
> or not, as you see fit, but in any case please respond to the comments, for
> closure.
> 
> Murray Kutcherawy:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KXu2Gktlcl3A4pKp05qcIxb1etw/
> (Suggests removing S. 2 intro paragraph. I don’t have any strong feelings
> about this.)
> 
> Deb Cooley:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9RxfO0GqtZqdk8EMHROku0ayOok/
> (In particular please give some attention to the comments about Section 6.)
> 
> Erik Kline:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QmFcOEKGySdR--61apXinoKEjKQ/
> (The suggestion related to RFC 9602 seems like it could be a valuable
> improvement.)
> 
> Linda Dunbar/IETF LC: In his reply
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RcyUs0xZtQJx9KQdAACCUhhkQck/
> Jie says,
> 
> ```
> Good question, with CPR mechanism, at the prefix originator, each colored
> prefix is associated with a specific intent (i.e. color). And in each domain,
> according to the color mapping policy, the same CPR route is always updated
> with the same color. Thus normally there will never be multiple copies of CPR
> routes with the same prefix but different color. The case you described is
> considered as an error which should be logged, and none of these routes
> should be used.
> ```
> 
> But the draft doesn’t say anything about errors that should be logged (the
> words “error” and “log” don’t appear in the document at all). I’m not sure
> if this calls for the draft to be updated [*] or if you should revise your response
> to Linda, but whichever it is, I’d like to see this resolved better. [**]
> 
> I’ve set the datatracker substate to “Revised I-D Needed”. For clarity,
> although I think it’s likely you will want to make some updates, you are not
> *required* to revise the I-D. If you think none of the above-noted
> comments/suggestions are applicable, that’s OK, but you do need to follow
> up and say so in that case.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John
> 
> [*] But be careful, the draft is Informational because it introduces no new
> normative requirements, and was approved with that status. If you introduce
> new requirements, we might have to reconsider.
> 
> [**]  It might be that removing “which should be logged” from Jie’s reply is
> all that’s needed. Also, if you think it would be helpful you could note in the
> document that this is considered a misconfiguration. If I’ve missed where you
> already do that, please point it out to me.