Re: draft-ietf-6man-sids-00 comments

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Darren,
  Thanks for the comments. Please find responses online.

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:21 AM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Suresh and 6man. Since there is some discussion started on this
> draft I thought I would take the opportunity to provide a couple
> comments/proposals:
>
>
>
> Section 4
>
> ========
>
> Minor, but best to clarify that the destination address changes only at
> segment endpoints.
>
> <OLD>
>
> The destination address field of the packet changes on the fly in a way
> similar to how the address changes as the result of processing a segment in
> the SRH.
>
> </OLD>
>
> <NEW>
>
> The destination address field of the packet changes at a segment endpoint
> in a way similar to how the address changes as the result of processing a
> segment in the SRH.
>
> </NEW>
>
>
>

Sounds good. I will make this change in the next rev.

Seciton 4.1
>
> =========
>
> The first bullet indicates the CSID draft should update the definition of
> Segments Left since RFC8200 describes it as number of route segments left
> to visit.
>
>
>
> It appears the update should have happened with RFC8986, since it is
> already not correct for the binding SID, which encodes multiple
> intermediate nodes to be visited that are not accounted for by the segments
> left field. In fact the definition doesn't hold true for adjacency SIDs
> (they describe two nodes to visit).  These were both defined in RFC8402.
>
>
>
> Given this, the text in RFC8754 should have explicitly indicated that
> Segments Left is an index to the Segment List of the SRH
>
> <OLD>
>
> Segments Left:  Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-4.4>.
>
> </OLD>
>
> <NEW>
>
> Segments Left:  Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-4.4>. More
> specifically, the number of segments remaining in the Segment List of the
> SRH.
>
> </NEW>
>
>
>
> We can accomplish this in one of two ways:
>
> 1 – via errata to RFC8754, since it seems reasonable the IETF and WG new
> of these SIDs while RFC8754 was written. However this is probably too big
> for an errata?
>
> 2 – via a new draft stating that the SRH uses Segments Left as an index
> into the segment list of the SRH with something like the above text.
>
I think this might be a bit of a stretch for an erratum but I will let the
chairs and the ADs chime in.

Regards
Suresh