Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

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=[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>