Comments on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03

[[e-mail]]

Hi Zafar,






I have several comments on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03 as below.


In section 4.1.1 and 4.2.2.1, several descriptions of node behavior on "performs the standard SRH processing" and "executes the END.X function" can be improved.


For example, in section 4.1.1, I propose to change the description of Node N2 behavior.


OLD

Node N2, which is an SRv6 capable node, performs the standard SRH processing.  Specifically, it executes the END.X function (B:2:C31) and forwards the packet on link3 to N3.

NEW

Node N2, which is an SRv6 capable node, performs the standard SRv6 SID and SRH processing.  Specifically, it executes the END.X function (B:2:C31) and forwards the packet on link3 to N3.

As I understand, the behavior of executing the END.X function is not part of SRH processing, but part of SRv6 SID (IPv6 DA) processing, right?

In section 4.1.1, I propose to insert one more sentence clarifyiing the behavior of the egress SRv6 capable node.

OLD

Similarly, the egress node (IPv6 classic or SRv6 capable) does not require any change to process the ICMPv6 echo request.

NEW

Similarly, the egress node (IPv6 classic or SRv6 capable) does not require any change to process the ICMPv6 echo request, and there is no difference in processing of the ICMPv6 echo request at an IPv6 classic node and an SRv6 capable node.

This inserted sentence is almost the same with thatBes is present in section 4.2.1 as "There is no difference in processing of the traceroute probe at an IPv6 classic node and an SRv6 capable node." The reason is that I was asked whether the ICMPv6 echo reply would carry SRH when the egress node is SRv6 capable, as I understand , the answer is NO, but I couldn't find explicit text in the current draft.

In section 4.2.2.1, s/hop count/hop limit/g, s/hop-count/hop-limit/g

In section 4.2.2.1, s/2001:DB8:3:4::41/2001:DB8:3:4:41; In section 4.2.1, s/2001:DB8:4:5::52::/2001:DB8:4:5:52::/g, s/2001:DB8:3:4::41/2001:DB8:3:4:41. In addition, the displayed interface IPv6 addresses in Figure 3 have the last ::, but that in Figure 4 have no the last ::, shouldn't they be the same?




Best Regards,

Xiao Min