Re: [Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt

Jeff Tantsura <> Sun, 15 September 2019 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF70E1200CD; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.003
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EU33u-3k3v84; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 287DA12001E; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n4so18512392pgv.2; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=+wMXPYufwKvY/9ZK4mroutWBJlVsDQ9ynYgEc1mIFMQ=; b=t/17RkUqxntGZ13dj9Ep04lKmhOqhflxS9TKePCLKYPimIKZcupQXnWHHD/Pp/1krG RrjCqWmOqMWf/Qh1kqEsxp6Ops9FvWZZ6K8FgENC97k3r2n2DHqAE/ol/nhURJaeF9yW Dk7HrhKMk+PFzDXi3MQj0svhBs52HcqKIMiFAbkbn13+IyoYSun5Wwh44ed0chGPGUmu SrQQI8oinjBRcY0NGx5CkyXSHucJdprTjxmhwWIyXImUotwDco3XYCtaiYaO07Sk5/A3 oOGXdV/kFAGM0QinQqDlP1vlYdY1pWsn4HSBAhBTXdJS2BJo4UfJNdH05yJJEMYhijZn lcLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=+wMXPYufwKvY/9ZK4mroutWBJlVsDQ9ynYgEc1mIFMQ=; b=eaiwKOCldPWHyY1yOBAtDfXQSJquBQSPsC3xfWn5iYkLTkD4ETP9WWELUHx6jJqDwj WQSddwAv7NXW9CnF85m0rpJfdSs7QD+1qG9i4Aiaqo6DXsym9+XE0obPv09HRUzq056W 76hF8Z5u57JKT/z4zAUErmc1aNd8uaMSXM189uT8ydhzs8zGTfv72I9UM2bgWtEMnSRw aYegZx/eQxZB/hAesceHI5sSrLn7MSI90IW5W1WEBrGcpfGEzVQWE2/bsYAJxf6jXo3R InJEyN7DbqToi5gapwhZQg/7dFkDswaNgstA+t5JdQXtXnzyLAX+ZoHLpXbCwhkVqIdk lkQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4tdPVqZMqV9h7WuvnIin8j84UmUdIDokyB+y8Gp30EjgLLXLu u7Y/jgoENtvLOq2guqnUTXQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGMX/lJe2bfQ29mFNdzmoAI0Phc+qKtSambnIN3S9zm7kJAHg+WBVAl4DHkwwzM9IS7VgRPQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8d0c:: with SMTP id c12mr17438706pjo.133.1568585580239; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z10sm2830424pjr.15.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:12:53 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <>
To: Routing ADs <>, Mach Chen <>
Cc: Routing Directorate <>, "=?utf-8?Q?" <>, "=?utf-8?Q?" <>
Message-ID: <5b4dc57c-4d7f-451f-ad32-6b4c1a7be8f0@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 5b4dc57c-4d7f-451f-ad32-6b4c1a7be8f0@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5d7eb76a_579478fe_64bf"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:13:03 -0000

Hello Mach,

Many thanks for your review.
Please note - the latest version of the document is 07.

Please see inline

On Sep 15, 2019, 5:13 AM -0700, Mach Chen <>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
> 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-05.txt
> Reviewer: Mach Chen
> Review Date: 10 September 2019
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
> Comments:
> Generally, I found the draft quite readable, with a clear explanation of the problem statements and solutions. However, I have one minor comment and a nit.
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> Minor Issues:
> This draft is an extension to BGP-LS (RFC 7752) that is under a re-spin, I have a question whether this draft should reference to RFC 7752 or the new bis document.
[jeff] we have added clarifying text in the 07 version. please let me know if this addresses your comments.
> Nits:
> 1.1.1. Terminology
> Part of the last bullet should be separated into a dedicated paragraph, it looks like an copy and pastes nit.
> "The number of labels imposed is then the sum of the number of labels that are
> replaced and the number of labels that are pushed. See [RFC3031]"
> Best regards,
> Mach