Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

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
>>
> 
> 