Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
>