Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 11:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
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 911CA3A099E; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 AL4K6-9mGpEm; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5473A0973; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5464; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1588765229; x=1589974829; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=55G0C78m0/MC23kYu4gWWyjTguVV1rp3MhT+NXffQ1M=; b=FW9ZjmtdEGeLtPpLz9gDtGh8WXrHHPOGztgnJOV2aUTuiE3bn1Rd1Eg7 8jmsMgaN931Hv/hM39k1/9BnXiPkCmeLzHDN4I4Hq+N4UbPYCVnpdk3SY /KntSD1gVD8Ua7bvpGvnLVl41VNEoR6ES9hxr2JOo+COr9pixZKw6AtF2 M=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B3AADFobJe/xbLJq1mGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIFHgxhVIBIqBIQfiQGHYQglmXeBZwsBAQEOJQoEAQGERAKCJ?= =?us-ascii?q?TgTAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVYMhXEBAQEBAgEjDwEFLxIQCxQEA?= =?us-ascii?q?gIRFQICVwYBDAgBAYMiAYJcIA+zA3aBMoQ9AgELAkABQoNFgUCBDiqFLA6Fa?= =?us-ascii?q?4E5gUE/gRABJwyCXT6CXAsCAwGBGoEGglOCYASiS5AGglKCcIUoj3gGHYJbg?= =?us-ascii?q?QyHVYRUJ4xpkBeJVJNwgWkigVYzGggbFYMlCEcYDZlIhUQ/AzI1AgYBBwEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wmSRgEB?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,358,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="23606378"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 May 2020 11:40:20 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 046BeJOV026397; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:40:19 GMT
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org
References: <158867180371.13174.5911030866330688420@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <de2f76a2-629b-3a1a-9618-0d4342f7a302@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 13:40:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <158867180371.13174.5911030866330688420@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LPJwGS2rYvHBZECea9-PG1a9Fss>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12
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: Wed, 06 May 2020 11:40:36 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

thanks, for your comments, please see inline:


On 05/05/2020 11:43, Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review Date: 2020-05-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-05
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> 
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
> before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> Disclaimer: I reviewed an earlier version (-08) as part of the early
> directorate review, which could be located at -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08-rtgdir-early-dhody-2019-09-12/
> 
> I have reviewed this and the OSPF I-D together and you will find similar
> comments for both I-Ds. You could discuss them in one place.
> 
> Major Issues:
> None
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> (1) Introduction
> 
>     Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-
>     state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS [RFC8667].
> 
>     Is there a better way to introduce IS-IS extension for SR (than saying that
>     it is just an example to signal labels)?


What about:

Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane relies on Interior Gateway 
Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS [RFC8667] to signal labels.


> 
> (2) Section 3
> 
>      Query: The text says that the ABR "MUST" preserve the ELC setting where as
>      the ASBR "SHOULD" preserve it. What is the reason for using SHOULD in case
>      of ASBR? Maybe we can spell out in which case ASBR might not preserve the
>      ELC setting.

redistribution is a local matter on the box and is not standardized, so 
it's quite hard to mandate a specific behavior. That's why SHOULD.

> 
> (3) Section 4
> 
>     The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
>     advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
> 
>     Do you mean to differentiate between support for the capability itself v/s
>     support for 'advertisement' only. But RFC 8662 says that ERLD value is
>     advertised only when following conditions are met:

What is meant is that even though all the below conditions are set, if 
the node does not support the advertisement, one can not conclude what 
its ERLD is.

If the node supports the advertisement of the ERLD, but the below 
conditions are not met, the node should not advertise the ELC capability 
in a first place.

> 
>     *  MUST be entropy label capable and, as a consequence, MUST apply
>        the data-plane procedures defined in [RFC6790].
> 
>     *  MUST be able to read an ELI/EL, which is located within its ERLD
>        value.
> 
>     *  MUST take into account an EL within the first ERLD labels in its
>        load-balancing function.
> 
>     Thus, I am not sure about this sentence. Maybe you mean to say that the
>     absence only indicates that the ERLD-MSD value of the node is unknown (and
>     it might still be capable of handling ELI/EL)?
> 
>     I see similar language in RFC8491 but I think we could be clearer in this
>     I-D for ERLD.
> 
> (4) Section 4
> 
>      What would be the behavior if an IS-IS router receives an ERLD of the node
>      but no ELC set for the corresponding prefix? That would be an error as per
>      RFC 8662, we should specify how one handles it within IS-IS. If it is to
>      just ignore the ERLD, we should explicitly say that.

the behavior is specified in the RFC 8662.  ISIS is just a messenger, 
not the consumer of this information.


> 
> (5) Section 4
> 
>      We need to clearly state that this new MSD Type is carried in Node MSD
>      sub-TLV as described in [RFC8491]. And then I guess we don't really need
>      figure 2? The format is as per RFC 8491!

done.

> 
> Nits:
> 
> (1) Abstract - use term LSP instead of tunnel for consistency
> 
>     OLD:
>     An ingress Label
>     Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
>     given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
>     via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
>     as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel.
>     NEW:
>     An ingress Label
>     Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
>     given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
>     via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
>     as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP.
>     END
> 

fixed

> (2) Expand BGP-LS on first use!

fixed.

thanks,
Peter
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> 
> 
> 
>