[Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-15: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 12 June 2019 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704F812009C; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, idr-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156030307145.5955.16632008914934707005.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:31:11 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oL-T-TpDccnBkZMCiyMK-wfCN44>
Subject: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:31:11 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-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-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Section 2.0.  Does the sentence, “This document adds additional BGP-LS
Attribute TLVs in order to encode SR information” imply that this document
should explicitly update RFC7752?

(2) Add more detailed citations
-- Section 2.x.  Section 2.1.x.  When citing a reference to explain a given
TLV/sub-TLV, consider adding the relevant section number to improve
readability.  For example:

OLD: Section 2.1.1, IS-IS, as defined by the SID/Label sub-TLV in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].

NEW: Section 2.1.1, IS-IS, as defined by the SID/Label sub-TLV in Section 3.2
of [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].

-- Section 2.1.2  Per the octet of flags, please specify the specific section
number of [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].

-- Section 2.2.*.  Consider adding the appropriate section number in the
references when described the flags field.

(3) Section 2.1.4.  Per “SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which
encodes the first label in the range”, why is this just the first label?  Isn’t
there the potential of a series of labels each in a distinct SID/Label sub-TLV?

(4) Section 2.2.2.  Is there a reference to explain the semantics of the weight
field?

(5) Section 2.3.1.  Is there a reference to explain the semantics of the
algorithm field?

(6) Editorial Nits:
-- Section 2.1.1.  Missing word:
s/The TLV and has the following format:/
/The TLV and sub-TLV has the following format:/

-- Section 2.1.5.  Typo.  s/a unsigned/an unsigned/