[Lsr] WG last call complete draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 [Re: Pre-writeup review comments]

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Thu, 08 October 2020 15:18 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 920973A0E6F; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 KJ2qxaHXiYUq; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA4F3A0A70; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:18:25 -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 0AB1F61671; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:18:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <565C0708-CAC6-485F-B1C8-5D63EA849372@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C61A757E-D885-44BC-977B-8F5C60EB02A9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:18:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <dbdc7965-56f2-3ae8-0237-7560f35a203e@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, lsr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <F4960B6C-87E7-4A32-8340-37E2C82A2CBC@chopps.org> <e68c2baa-4fbb-a2dd-aee8-42d8e1de7538@cisco.com> <CF2C1EE5-8A9D-46C4-A30C-57A78144A90D@chopps.org> <4794a984-38fe-0a85-9622-fb62d12bdb31@cisco.com> <dbdc7965-56f2-3ae8-0237-7560f35a203e@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/d_2wPbr9dWQAqg5tIvhr0CeNVjU>
Subject: [Lsr] WG last call complete draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 [Re: 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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:18:38 -0000

Thanks Joel, Peter, et al.

The WG last call is now complete (it was mainly being held during the appeal on the base document, and was ready a while ago). The document improved in the meantime which is great.

I have completed the write-up and the document has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 11:00 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to confirm, yes, that change Peter has made removing END.T resolves my concerns.
> Thanks,
> Joel
> 
> On 10/8/2020 9:38 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>> please see inline:
>> On 02/10/2020 12:32, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote:
>>> 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.
>> fixed.
>>> 
>>> [ ] 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"?
>> done
>>> 
>>> [ ] 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.
>> I have modified the section 12.5.
>>> 
>>> It looks like there is more discussion from Joel on this draft, so I will hold off on submission for that to resolve.
>> I have removed the END.T in the latest version. The discussion with Joel is closed.
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr