Re: [Idr] RtgDir review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04

["Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chris,

many thanks for your review.

I applied all your comments and suggestions. See below.


> On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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-prefix-sid-04
> Reviewer: Christian Hopps
> Review Date: 2017-03-04
> IETF LC End Date: Unknown
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> Summary:
> ========
> 
>    [x] This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
>    should be considered prior to publication.
> 
> Comments:
> =========
> 
> Draft is quite readable.
> 
> Major Issues:
> =============
> 
> No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues:
> =============
> 
> References normative vs informative. I'm not sure why some of the informative
> aren't normative. For example the S-bit indicates that the router is capable of
> processing the SRH which is defined by [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] so
> shouldn't this be a Normative reference?


among the comments I received, it appeared that the flag in the ipv6 sid tlv is not needed so I changed the tlv format and removed the reference (also, the srh draft is still not in last call so I don’t want to have an extra delay on this one).


> Additionally the Originator SRGB TLV
> references [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] for the meaning of
> multiple ranges (represented by the presence of multiple TLVs).


I also removed the reference.


> Advisory only: There are many cases of reserved fields being "SHOULD be 0 on
> transmit and MUST be ignored on receive." Is it better to use MUST instead of
> SHOULD here as that allows for better future-proofing? With "MUST be 0" you
> could then count on the values being zero for devices that do not support a
> future extension where the value is not zero. Of course future extensions could
> always use another method to determine if the reserved field holds newly valid
> values so this isn't that big a deal.


fixed.


> 
> Nits:
> =====
> 
> By far there are more references to "nodes" than to "routers", but I think they
> all refer to the same thing -- maybe pick one name.
> 
> Section 4 1st paragraph: remove first sentence starting "The value field..."
> 
> 2nd paragraph: Add "The" to "Following TLVs are defined."
> 
> Section 4.3 2nd paragraph of description of SRGB (1st paragraph on page.8) uses
> an unexpanded acronym SRTE.

all fixed.

Thanks.
s.