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

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Thu, 09 March 2017 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB346129468; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:05:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XURhV1E6tOx; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5E7129466; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:05:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4356; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489057542; x=1490267142; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=L8aCA7znQk1RMzDmG9JvsVTiWwUrWM5PdiPShYpeswU=; b=L6HnkHY3AJ2TnsB5QyFOfTqT6006yTTRHRF1wDDlK2vXvex/V/2EFGEG PeZC35XeVZ8c5i1sAZunpcp6R6xl5i1PAcgVTg99fuyI6UmWuNEU3q5BD P2TIaEo9WUv5j0hiI0JGm5h6Ng2nAglrfhAfp0/yNz7PLfQm9MVxKyQgP A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ApAQA5NsFY/5hdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1FhgQoHg1mKDJFOlTiCDiqFeAIagjI/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRU?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAgEjEUUFCwIBCA4GBAICJgICAjAVEAIEDgWJeAgOsDGCJopvAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYELhUOCBYJqhFSDBi6CMQWPWIYihj8BhnWLQoF7U4R?= =?us-ascii?q?QigKTPgEfOIEDVhVQAYRCHYFjdQGJHYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,268,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="221201665"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Mar 2017 11:05:41 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-008.cisco.com (xch-rtp-008.cisco.com [64.101.220.148]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v29B5fk3001283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:05:41 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-008.cisco.com (64.101.220.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:05:40 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:05:41 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04
Thread-Index: AQHSmMUXdFjiFkN2Vkmb2poli49Pkw==
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:05:41 +0000
Message-ID: <A17369E5-B7BE-4BC5-9C26-BD34F41FFED7@cisco.com>
References: <87o9xdcgnl.fsf@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <87o9xdcgnl.fsf@chopps.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.99.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <DD5738716125C54BBADDF7D43E631D5E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qIhomEdjJcXuzW8CW7sYCDjKNZI>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid.all@ietf.org>, Routing ADs <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RtgDir review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 11:05:44 -0000

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 <chopps@chopps.org> 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.