RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

I have just posted a new version with these changes. 

                                               Thanks,
                                                  Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 1:09 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-11.txt

On 16/2/20 21:56, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Over the last several weeks, customers who have no interest in Segment Routing have expressed interest in the CRH. So, we have updated the CRH draft, removing all references to Segment Routing and letting it stand alone as an IPv6 Routing header.
> 
> While Segment Routing may one day be a user of the CRH, it will not be the only user.
> 
> Please review this document as a stand-alone piece of work.

I support this document. It does the right thing in trying to reduce overhead in how waypoints/segments are encoded, as opposed to wasting space there and then trying to cover up elsewhere.


Specific comments below:

* Intro:

OLD:
RH0 [RFC5095] was the first to be
    defined and was deprecated because of security vulnerabilities.

NEW:
    RH0 was the first to be defined [RFC2460]  and was deprecated
RFC5095 because of security vulnerabilities.

(RFC5095] is about the deprecation, not the specification)


* Section 3:
OLD:
    In all cases, the CRH MUST end on a 64-bit boundary.  So, the Type-
    specific data field MAY be padded with zeros.

NEW:
    In all cases, the CRH MUST end on a 64-bit boundary.  So, the Type-
    specific data field MUST be padded with zeros if the CRH would
    otherwise not end on a 64-bit boundary.

* Section 11:
s/LINUX/Linux/


Thanks!

Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492