[Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 18 September 2020 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321BB3A0ACD; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L73_wHz9eYga; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4748E3A0B37; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com []) (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 BA5A5616B5; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4D186459-925B-4EF5-89A0-1DA1D2BF3D0B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Message-Id: <7D828E53-E739-403E-9EB0-F24FD1F40705@chopps.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:08:08 -0400
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, lsr@ietf.org
To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_FtxmId-Md1R1Ky9ty0tnYLSyPU>
Subject: [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, 18 Sep 2020 14:08:28 -0000

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?

6.  Advertising Anycast Property

Should "Locator that is advertised..." be:

  "An SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?


  "A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?

7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV Format

The R fields and their handling, are not defined.

8.  Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs

"must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""?

8.1.  SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV

"Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match

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.

"Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match

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.

12. IANA Considerations

An odd space between "sub- TLV".

12.5.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs

This section needs to better conform to registry creation standards (see


  There are 19 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
  being 5 characters in excess of 72.

    Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header
    Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
    Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
    Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing