Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 23 September 2020 20:36 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 0B0903A149B; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.602 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 DbiawqiG6nAG; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E00B93A149A; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3401; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1600893367; x=1602102967; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O8dBdsPWDMAfr5t0Aj8EKy2TUHZDRi+wrELcdTiOSjo=; b=T7u3/9Q5wcBX0vJ+Om/WN4GCodrffHca67TYzLwHgxgQFE5yYMnQnMVk So7tas7MwC9WQMzbhBwcYWBX5UEYIOCAln2dXdE55nOAC34WZW3UUg/B6 CSPaoj9oJO76N6YR3HLh0rmz6ddMCQuXUzwKJiUx68tfrYrn1IjcpV+mu 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BNAABcsGtf/xbLJq1gGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBARIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQFAgU+Be4EfVQEgEoRmiQKIEy6aOIF?= =?us-ascii?q?pCwEBAQ8jDAQBAYRLAoIrJTgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVyAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BIwQRQQULCxgCAiYCAlcHDAgBAYMiAYJcIA+2SXZ/M4RPQUODXYE8BoEOKok?= =?us-ascii?q?bhCyBQT+BEAEngmk+glwBAQMBgUGDMYJgBJtvijmRC4JxgxOFZoZUinkFBwM?= =?us-ascii?q?fgwyJe4URjnGTAIpilUWBayOBVzMaCBsVgyVPGQ2OKxeBAgEJh1aFRD8DZwI?= =?us-ascii?q?GCgEBAwmOXwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,295,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="29864368"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Sep 2020 20:36:02 +0000
Received: from [10.61.92.246] (ams3-vpn-dhcp7415.cisco.com [10.61.92.246]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08NKa2J1008505; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:36:02 GMT
To: chopps@chopps.org, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
References: <F4960B6C-87E7-4A32-8340-37E2C82A2CBC@chopps.org>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e68c2baa-4fbb-a2dd-aee8-42d8e1de7538@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:36:02 +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: <F4960B6C-87E7-4A32-8340-37E2C82A2CBC@chopps.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.92.246, ams3-vpn-dhcp7415.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ZNWhQ58zSLP3Yh0d0U8mVMBiL-Q>
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: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:36:09 -0000

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
> 
>