Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 02 October 2020 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 99FD83A0FB5; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 03:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 NM9fTTDrp9Vm; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 03:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2393A1018; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 03:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB87460424; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:32:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <C39213D1-755F-4C76-81CE-30978D5017ED@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B5109E4-8970-4E02-A4F9-DCAE817998C9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 06:32:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <e68c2baa-4fbb-a2dd-aee8-42d8e1de7538@cisco.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <F4960B6C-87E7-4A32-8340-37E2C82A2CBC@chopps.org> <e68c2baa-4fbb-a2dd-aee8-42d8e1de7538@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/NHgvNoHr5GnLXvkkV-m5dLj02wk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:32:40 -0000

Thanks for the update, a couple issues remain.

[ ] 7.1 and 8.1

The reserved bits for "SRv6 Locator TLV" and "SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV" are
defined differently (and probably incorrectly) than the other reserved bits.
Reserved bits "MUST" be set to zero, not "SHOULD", I believe.

[ ] 11.  Implementation Status

I know you mentioned that the section should be removed, but how about adding a note to the editor in the next revision e.g., "RFC Ed.: Please remove this section prior to publication"?

[ ] 12.5.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs

This section needs to better conform to registry creation standards (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126). In particular there is no guidance.

It looks like there is more discussion from Joel on this draft, so I will hold off on submission for that to resolve.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> thanks for your comments.
> 
> Please see inline (##PP):
> 
> On 18/09/2020 16:08, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote:
>> During my review and while doing the Shepherd writeup for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ I came up with the following comments:
>> 4.3 - Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type:
>>   - what is the default if not advertised?
> 
> ##PP
> added "or no value is advertised" as for other MSD types.
> 
>> 6.  Advertising Anycast Property
>> Should "Locator that is advertised..." be:
>>   "An SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?
>> or:
>>   "A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?
> 
> ##PP
> fixed.
> 
>> 7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV Format
>> The R fields and their handling, are not defined.
> 
> ##PP
> added
> 
> 
>> 8.  Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs
>> "must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""?
> 
> ##PP
> I replaced with:
> 
> Certain SRv6 Endpoint behaviors [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] are associated with a particular adjacency.
> 
> 
>> 8.1.  SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV
>> "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match
> 
> ##PP
> fixed.
> 
>> 8.2.  SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV
>> I'm sympathetic to Bruno's comment, and so I think it would be better to say:
>> Diagram: "System ID (1-6 octets)" and in text:
>> "6 octets" -> "System ID: 1-6 octets"
>> I see no reason to mess with this even if the commonly-implemented value is 6 at
>> this point. IS-IS implementations that only support 6 octets are free to only
>> support 6 in this sub-TLV as well. They won't be talking with other IS-IS
>> routers that are configured to have a non-6 octet system ID value. What other
>> extension RFCs may or may-not do WRT this doesn't really matter I think.
> 
> ##PP
> I have updated the text to match what is being used in RFC8667, section 2.2.2
> 
> 
>> "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match
> 
> ##PP
> fixed
> 
>> 11.  Implementation Status
>> Does this section need a "RFC Ed.: Please Remove prior to publications"? It
>> seems pretty wrong to document current status of implementations permanently in
>> an Standards Track RFC.
> 
> ##PP
> yes this section will be removed prior to publication. This is a standard procedure we follow.
> 
>> 12. IANA Considerations
>> An odd space between "sub- TLV".
> 
> ##PP
> fixed
> 
>> 12.5.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs
>> This section needs to better conform to registry creation standards (see
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126).
> 
> ##PP
> I updated the IANA section format similar to RFC8667.
> 
> 
>> ID-NITS:
>>   There are 19 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
>>   being 5 characters in excess of 72.
> 
> ##PP
> fixed.
> 
>> References:
>>   Normative:
>>     Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header
> 
> ##PP
> fixed.
> 
> 
>>     Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
>>     Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
> 
> ##PP
> Whenever the new version of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extension is published it picks the latest version, but as these drafts keep changing the reference may get out of date quickly.
> 
> 
> 
>>   Informative:
>>     Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing
> 
> ##PP
> fixed
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>