[Lsr] 回复: draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-01

[[e-mail]]

Hi Huaimo, 

 

Thanks for your review comments, please see some replies inline with [YQ]:

 

 

发件人: Lsr <[e-mail]> 代表 Huaimo Chen
发送时间: 2020年10月7日 5:57
收件人: [e-mail]
主题: [Lsr] draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-01

 

Hi Authors,

 

    I have the following comments/questions on the draft.

 

    In section 2 "Advertisement of SR VTN Topology Attribute", 

for the last sentence "..., the Flex-Algo identifier could be reused 

as the identifier of the VTN in control plane.",

 

How do you reuse the Flex-Algo identifier?

[YQ] The “reuse” here means to make use of the existing Flex-Algo
identifier to represent VTN, rather than defining a new identifier. 

    Does every VTN have a Flex-Algo identifier?

    If so, where does the Flex-Algo identifier of every VTN come from?

[YQ] Yes, every VTN needs to be represented with a unique Flex-Algo
identifier. The Flex-Algo identifier comes from network planning. 

    In section 3 "Advertisement of SR VTN Resource Attribute", 

    is new flag "V" (Virtual) defined in this draft as an extension to RFC
8668?

[YQ] Yes, this is an extension to RFC 8668. 

    If so, should an IANA request/action in section "IANA Considerations" 

be added for this extension?

[YQ] Currently there is no IANA registry for the flags of L2 Bundle Member
Attributes TLV defined in RFC 8668, thus this new flag is described in the
text only. While a new registry may be created if the WG believe it is
helpful. 

    If not (i.e., it is defined in another draft), 

it is better to remove the definition of flag "V" from 

this draft and add a reference to another draft.

    In this case, it seems that there is no IANA request from this draft. 

It would be better to change the intended status of the draft from 

the standards track to informational. 

[YQ] As explained above, a new flag is proposed in this document, thus it is
appropriate to make it standard track.

Some nits: 

In section 2, the second sentence of the last paragraph,

should "to used" be changed to "to use"?

 

In section 3, the first sentence of the second paragraph,

should "was defined to advertise" be changed to 

"defines the advertisement of"?

  [YQ] Thanks for catching the nits, we will fix them in next revision. 

 

Best regards,

Yongqing Zhu

  

Best Regards,

Huaimo