Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11

Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 14 May 2018 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DE112D72F; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 Sf3fjF0wb0cz; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF6F5126D05; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A589C096F; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1526330012; bh=rUQtvJbqKChZ7iW2ZPFcmdGvabpzcLvYu67j+SQY1yw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=caMSU3BUYAqvDgUjaVW5MJKelHGJEvzjv96eEMXr5ZHeqvQMpFNmzU7fMy9xgJ1Y+ 94bpX7cxXk7nXBLFHpIf9zal0lhNuDtOsC4N9qlMtTDedjstYKwzUmjKw3kvse0ks1 3FhrdKA6HZ/2WofQs6o2o53OsfQJecWFyYeOyUVk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A38A19C071D; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <152632807068.10078.4478550408904407310@ietfa.amsl.com> <e53fa35538f042d98bde5e4e82f621d6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <8050bc23-d648-4ac8-ff4c-1978d6ecc9d9@joelhalpern.com> <749d7ac055aa40c0a1e149b755f16c01@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <0ba80b61-5007-e031-d019-02c4760d28e1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:33:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <749d7ac055aa40c0a1e149b755f16c01@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uk_icPNxEtPZhFip9CnVchCxCGs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:33:35 -0000

I meant "this" (the document under review), not "that" 
(conflict-resolution).  Since the other documents I found indicated that 
conflict resolution defined it, I assumed it did.    Given that 
conflict-resolution is a dead document, something needs to actually 
define the SRMS.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/14/18 4:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Joel -
> 
> I don’t fully understand the rest of your comment then. You said:
> 
> " And that document does appear to define the  SRMS."
> 
> (where "that document" refers to draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution).
> 
> But the conflict resolution document never defined an SRMS - it merely described how SRMS advertisements were used in the context of conflict resolution.
> So if you are unsatisfied with the "SRMS definition" in ldp-interop draft I think you need to be more clear as to what you think is lacking.
> 
> I leave it to the draft authors to resolve this issue with you.
> 
>      Les
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:16 PM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Joel Halpern
>> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; gen-art@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org;
>> spring@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-
>> routing-ldp-interop-11
>>
>> Thanks Les.  I wondered if that were the case.
>>
>> Looking again at the draft, the problem then is that section 4.2 of the subject
>> draft is not a normative definition of an SRMS.  It states the general
>> functionality, and then provides an example of how it would work in the
>> given scenario.
>>
>> If the text were enhanced to be an effective normative definition of an
>> SRMS, then that would also resolve the quesiton of the intended status of
>> the draft.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 5/14/18 4:12 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>> Joel -
>>>
>>> I am not an author of this draft - but I am an author on the referenced IS-IS
>> draft - which I assume is one of the drafts mentioned in  your comment:
>>>
>>>>       Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point
>> to
>>>>       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as
>> the
>>>>       defining source for the SRMS.
>>>
>>> The IGP document references in the ldp-interop draft are stale. Newer
>> versions of the IGP drafts have been published and they no longer reference
>> draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution - a draft which is no longer active.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>>       Les
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:01 PM
>>>> To: gen-art@ietf.org
>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org;
>>>> spring@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [spring] Genart last call review of
>>>> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
>>>> ldp-interop-11
>>>>
>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
>>>> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like
>>>> any other last call comments.
>>>>
>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>
>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>> Review Date: 2018-05-14
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24
>>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>>>
>>>> Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC.
>>>> The question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed
>>>> Standards track RFC is one that the ADs should examine.
>>>>
>>>> Major issues:
>>>>       This document is quite readable, and quite useful.  If my reading below
>>>>       (minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine.
>>>>       However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS.  Rather,
>> it
>>>>       describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP
>>>> integration and
>>>>       migration.  As such, this seems to me to be a really good Informational
>>>>       Document.
>>>>
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>       Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping
>>>>       Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point
>> to
>>>>       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as
>> the
>>>>       defining source for the SRMS.  And that document does appear to
>>>> define the
>>>>       SRMS.
>>>>
>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> spring mailing list
>>>> spring@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring