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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB346129468; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:05:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XURhV1E6tOx; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5E7129466; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:05:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,268,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="221201665"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Mar 2017 11:05:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:05:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 06:05:41 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <>
To: Christian Hopps <>
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: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Routing ADs <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RtgDir review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> 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
> ​
> 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.


> 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.