IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Lsr] Comments on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Tue, 08 December 2020 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AE93A0C15; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:45:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 a_cz0JRWZoia; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 1D4AA3A0C0A; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 4979448E0599DED20599; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:45:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 3407F43E46EAF7349B78; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:45:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0B83jDfB016735; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:45:13 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:45:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 11:45:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5fcef6c88fd8b9cb
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202012081145128884401@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 0B83jDfB016735
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/808Eu__p_5ZfVRlaaC1slh3KuhM>
Subject: [Lsr] Comments on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 03:45:25 -0000

Hi authors,






 I've read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/, and  this is a useful work. Thanks.


 But I have a   comment :






The recommended allocation type in section 12.3  conflicts with the existing allocated type,please see below.
















Please Check it.






Best Regards,


Ran

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email