Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Wed, 02 June 2021 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA113A174C; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 header.b=VaaiHWnl; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=aNkIhZlw
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 RAekNayly5Ye; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58E1B3A1749; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=67329; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1622660881; x=1623870481; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=SssEok16yIPVp/V3363yPJTEbB+3X5nG2sP+JN16MpE=; b=VaaiHWnl1aYCavurhrA87xS2+Ke5VZ93wGURC+P/de91EeEw0AlagYZX IsP4TqLHwMmuCZ5Tk6uaWeH6Lkf1XNTNLRZJCWehP+xTZMhXXvqUQyAeI htAS/oWo/RX4eMfd97b1QBvlJKns/BF1aSjmPF84e7L1uuZ5p2LiH+V3I 4=;
X-IPAS-Result: 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
IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:ZJx6RhNgkIbKLMFYm4Ul6ncZWUAX0o4cdiYe64EsjPRFdaHwt5jhP UmK4/JrgReJWIjA8PtLhqLQtLyoQm0P55uN8RVgOJxBXhMIk4MaygonBsPWAkzgJ/msZCs/T 4xOUVZ/9CS9Nk5YUM/1e1zVpCi06jgfUhXyPAZ4PKL7AInX2s+2zOu1vZbUZlYguQ==
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:g8NQ6aon0mIC7hApMNTaBIgaV5v9L9V00zEX/kB9WHVpm5Oj9v xGzc506farslkssSkb6K+90KnpewK6yXcH2/huAV7CZnimhILMFuFfBOTZskbd8kHFh4tgPO JbAtRD4b7LfBhHZKTBkXOF+r8bqbHtms3F9ISurUuFDzsaFp2IhD0JbDpzZ3cGPDWucqBJba Z0iPA3wwaISDAyVICWF3MFV+/Mq5ngj5T9eyMLABYh9U2nkS6owKSSKWna4j4uFxd0hZsy+2 nMlAL0oo+5teug9xPa32jPq7xLhdrazMdZDsDksLlWFtyssHfsWG1SYczEgNkHmpDo1L/sqq iUn/4UBbU215oWRBDsnfKi4Xi67N9k0Q6S9bbRuwqSnSW+fkNhNyKE7rgpLicwLCEbzYxBOe twrhCkX9A8N2KyoA3to9fPTB1kjUyyvD4rlvMSlWVWVc8EZKZWtpF3xjIbLH4sJlO21GkcKp gjMCgc3ocfTbqQVQGWgoCu+q3nYp0XJGbOfqEvgL3j79FmpgEz86JD/r1qop4pzuNKd3Br3Z WwDphV
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,242,1616457600"; d="scan'208,217";a="694686867"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Jun 2021 19:07:54 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 152J7sQN021633 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:07:54 GMT
Received: from xfe-aln-004.cisco.com (173.37.135.124) by xbe-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:07:54 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xfe-aln-004.cisco.com (173.37.135.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:07:54 -0500
Received: from NAM04-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:07:53 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=CrqqwPATH+k9gMpCqPVYE7KEACkufcSmfs9HwqX5e4YhAYLePxBjOyUTRw/eoNI05g6LGPqIs6LKacFSnt4uyoB4z3IL+xbC3d3HZufWUsVUiGagchVWx69iizqYlqp9P+lKDFW/HYF4wmhWMF8g87vZoeO5eau/+s78XPACAC5w/Q7stRzNaIkiIGz6e1umx1FQRPqj+zkA0VcqhzooaWKcjjtRtdbAoL+7Bj7njAlSrRXVjqTK5DQQnbQtV41TS6/HAStH5EQPkspmnJYbAoJjdOl/N1fWYcSvFARb0gaV3YapFr0mvjk/KFpGu9ElKgFYudB3MBCAt6/03bYOzA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=SssEok16yIPVp/V3363yPJTEbB+3X5nG2sP+JN16MpE=; b=biDWyw4+oloQgP0OyGXXOMPNZyKSjo3uv6ZBLUPkC/2KPxNau3TPKXRruVPuN5PJne9B4uA+Kwsu+BPiPl7tly7ciQNUC0l8rTY19em/81DiDO82DcQ9ntOu/tX4O9vJ1WFFnuiQ4fokXRwm6Q4pXi3bF4MF2vTOwpFlrwgf3pFCSmau1bn2WHN9g6klFoJ9YP2p3jHKJcSUelBwFozoCInXpJyulBiBweRV2pMjy7fKzaypq74SbI45RpHG5pGB2GsdLd5uLnZ5v/bC7ws6bsYZJbhvnS9dtG4xXlaJFs4ext4HIdIid2BPccrcmiLfJCux1ZHM4OWW1gKnd3ekSw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=SssEok16yIPVp/V3363yPJTEbB+3X5nG2sP+JN16MpE=; b=aNkIhZlwDI2I/VwJq1WcSA+I3bO1Xx7ZI06emPTUTlaXADlVdf2UhkMA0tnRpRvV2Jv9ehLW5qCNoF8ElBZTtyFgWwgZggRiHB8rqIrSjRXh/HHrHceWXituGrCIglrYfuoIoR2nJzTqb2FIdvURkkyM5DjnRtEP/P2oDxduL+4=
Received: from DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:2aa::11) by DM5PR1101MB2268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:53::7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4195.20; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:07:51 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7065:61fa:d9c5:d7ba]) by DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7065:61fa:d9c5:d7ba%9]) with mapi id 15.20.4173.030; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:07:51 +0000
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ole Trøan <ot@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHXVy/8Nh0NwrercEePzg2H6LuIrasAsA0AgAAjrgA=
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 19:07:50 +0000
Message-ID: <B3517782-4485-44C9-A7C3-26FA4EDCB3A0@cisco.com>
References: <162258412074.27049.12889234606469717323@ietfa.amsl.com> <01A1C740-D43E-40F4-A066-B2CCC2A31A2F@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <01A1C740-D43E-40F4-A066-B2CCC2A31A2F@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.49.21050901
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [47.185.233.68]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 73502514-01bd-4297-548d-08d925f9b7cb
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR1101MB2268:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR1101MB22684C567693930BFF3439C9DE3D9@DM5PR1101MB2268.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(376002)(346002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(107886003)(30864003)(966005)(2906002)(166002)(8936002)(21615005)(4326008)(2616005)(9326002)(224303003)(38100700002)(478600001)(122000001)(66946007)(316002)(66446008)(5660300002)(66556008)(110136005)(36756003)(54906003)(6486002)(76116006)(66476007)(64756008)(91956017)(6506007)(6512007)(71200400001)(66574015)(53546011)(26005)(33656002)(186003)(86362001)(83380400001)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B3517782448544C9A7C326FA4EDCB3A0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 73502514-01bd-4297-548d-08d925f9b7cb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jun 2021 19:07:50.8593 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tFeN5FVQ4ece9x8F9hvEPf1qO+IEv/JPAcphRU0BhtpX3gUJr9UcvowX9FXK2cPV
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR1101MB2268
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xbe-rcd-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2s3gM6-iPYHA94WjTbMgtmQkl5Q>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 19:08:07 -0000
Hi Eric, Please see [ZA] in-line on proposed changes/ clarifications to address your comments We plan to post an update to address your comments and other pending comments from Carlos Bernardos, et al (target: Before the telechat or later during the week; please excuse delay due to out-of-office situation) Thanks Regards … Zafar From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:00 PM To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ot@cisco.com" <ot@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Eric, Many thanks for your comments; much appreciated. As I am out-of-office, may we please take a two-step approach: Step1: We have posted rev-11 to address your DISCUSS: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11 Step2: Please expect a follow-up email from us on your comments. We plan to post an update to address your comments (target: Before the telechat or later during the week) Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:49 PM To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ot@cisco.com" <ot@cisco.com>, "ot@cisco.com" <ot@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org> Resent-To: <satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp>, <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>, <mach.chen@huawei.com>, <zali@cisco.com>, <cfilsfil@cisco.com> Resent-Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:48 PM Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10: Discuss 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. It is comforting (even if not surprising) that the simple "good old" ping/traceroute work on a SRv6 network ;-) Thanks to Carlos Bernardos for his INT-REVIEW at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2021-05-28/ [ZA] +1 Thanks Carlos! Sorry for delay in addressing the comments; I am and have been out-of-office since your comments; Plan is to address them before telechat or end of current week. Thanks to Ole Trøan for his shepherd document even if I regret the lack of justification for 'standards track'. Especially, because the abstract is mainly about ping/traceroute, hence should be informational but the O-flag is indeed standard track. So, all in all, this is OK. Please find below two blocking but trivial DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and one nit. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 2.1 -- As "a penultimate segment SHOULD NOT be a Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) SID" is normative, then the network programming RFC 8986 should be a normative reference. Trivial to fix. [ZA] We have fixed it Rev-11. -- Section 9.2 -- Trivial to fix, RFC 8174 should be normative. [ZA] We have fixed it Rev-11. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- == COMMENTS == Is there any reason not to follow RFC 5952 about IPv6 address representation? I.e., not using uppercase ;-) (you may use uppercase for the 'variable' such as k). I understand that changing the case is a long and cumbersome endeavor... [ZA] The capital letters are used to distinguish them from hex character, e.g., In 2001:db8:B:2:C31 B represents SID block C31 represents cross connect to neighbor node 3 via Link1, i.e., c is NOT meant as 0xc I hope it clarifies This comment is of course non-blocking. About the O-flag, as this I-D is about OAM, I would have expected that the document specifies some operational recommendations, e.g., collecting statistics about O-flag processing: packet count, requests ignored, ... [ZA] This is a good comment. We can add some operational recommendations. [ZA] We think it is RFC 8402, as the we are referring the following text from it: RFC8405: SR can be applied to the IPv6 architecture, with a new type of routing header. -- Section 1 -- In the first sentence, is it RFC 8402 or RFC 8754 ? -- Section 1.3 -- I was about to raise a DISCUSS on this one... the abstract and introduction is about SRv6 and this section uses network programming example with END.X. Suggest to either modify abstract / introduction to mention RFC 8986 or simplify the example by not using END.X (e.g., not mentioning END.X as the plain SRH adj-sid behavior is END.X -- no need IMHO to introduce the network programming nomenclature). [ZA] We can “modify abstract / introduction to mention RFC 8986”; We think that use of specific SIDs definition (like END.X) from RFC 8986 improve the illustrations. -- Section 2.1 -- Not important and feel free to ignore, but, while telemetry operation is important for OAM, OAM is broader than plain "telemetry data collect and export" (IMHO). I would have preferred the use of 'telemetry marking' for example. But, I guess it is too late to change the O-flag into a T-flag ;-) In "packet header", is the layer-2 header included ? IPFIX can export layer-2 information, hence my question. Perhaps better to use "IP header" here ? [ZA] We can make the change -- Section 2.1.1 -- I was again about the raise a DISCUSS on this point, S01.1 appears to be applicable to SRH/RFC 8754 while the text about PSP is clearly about net-pgm/RFC 8986. How can we reconciliate this ? [ZA] How about we add the following text to the draft. --- inserted before the pseudocode --- New Text to be added: The following pseudocode is exemplifies the O-flag processing using the SRv6 SID behaviors defined in Section 4.3.1 of [RFC8754]<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1>. The equivalent O-flag processing is equally applicable to the SIDs defined in [RFC8986]. For example, section 3.3 illustrates O-flag usage using END.X SID. --- Change after the pseudocode (changes in bold) --- Current text: Please note that the O-flag processing happens before execution of regular processing of the local SID S. Specifically, the line S01.1 of the pseudo-code specified in this document is inserted between line S01 and S02 of the pseudo-code defined in section 4.3.1.1 of<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.1> [RFC8754]<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.1>. New text: Please note that the O-flag processing happens before execution of regular processing of the local SID S. Specifically, the line S01.1 of the pseudo-code specified in this document is inserted between line S01 and S02 of the pseudo-code defined in section 4.3.1.1 of<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.1> [RFC8754]<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-4.3.1.1>. Similarly, the O-flag is processed before execution of regular processing of the SIDs defined in [RFC8986]. Finally, in the case of PSP, should the normative pseudo-code be changed by introducing another 'if' in the pseudo-code ? [ZA] As noted in above text from the draft, “the O-flag processing happens before execution of regular processing of the local SID S”, the PSP processing does not change the O-flag processing rule. -- Section 3.1.1 -- The figure 2 seems to have an incoherent 'screen shot' as 2001:db8:A:5:: is used as the ping target but the output of the ping displays "B5::". What did I miss ? [ZA] Good catch; will fix. The node N4 is assumed to "performs the standard SRH processing" but later it needs to process a "PSP SID", which is not standard SRH RFC but in the net-pgm one. We can the following changes; please advise: Current Text: Node N4, which is an SRv6-capable node, performs the standard SRH processing. Specifically, it observes the END.X behavior (2001:db8:B:4:C52::) and forwards the packet on link10 towards N5. New Text: Node N4, which is an SRv6-capable node, performs the the END.X (2001:db8:B:4:C52::) processing as defined in [RFC8986] and forwards the packet on link10 towards N5. -- Section 3.2.1 -- I wonder whether "These ICMPv6 responses are IP routed." is really useful here as plain IP routing will be applied (or do you mean no using SRH in the reply?). [ZA] That is a good point. There are some use-cases, where the node generating the ICMPv6 response may like to use a traffic engineered path using SRH, e.g., bi-directional SRv6 policy. How about the following diffs (in bold): Current Text: These ICMPv6 responses are IP routed. New Text: These ICMPv6 responses are IP routed. However, based on local configuration, the node generating the ICMPv6 response may use a traffic engineered path using SRH to send the echo reply. The example uses "DA" while I would expect that this would be the "SA" of the received ICMP messages. But, this is cosmetic. [ZA] We can fix/ clarify -- Section 3.2.2 -- What is a "classic IPv6 node" ? I guess it is a 'non SRv6-capable node' => to be added in the terminology section ? [ZA] Indeed; will fix -- Section 3.3 -- "The local OAM process sends a full or partial copy" it really smells like a postcard OAM while IPFIX can be used to send aggregated data, which is also very useful. All in all, if this is a local send to another process, then worth mentioning it. [ZA] In rev-11 diffs, we added a clarification text around "The local OAM process sends a full or partial copy" text; We also added text in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11.txt#section-2.1.1 == NITS == -- Section 1.3 -- As figure 1 uses a double border for SRv6-capable nodes, let's mention it in the text. [ZA] Thanks, we will fix it
- Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spring-s… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-spri… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)