Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 08 October 2020 13:38 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 C55173A02BC; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 06:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.814
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.814 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=-0.213, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable 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 y8zVsCzZWtWu; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 06:38:17 -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 9EAAC3A0DDD; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 06:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4956; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602164288; x=1603373888; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G4LLWEN3M2AgcnoLc2YdWIR7GBh+z04leLJFYiQKPYE=; b=g10XFEBRP6Yvl1oz/Sp1m4cUAyhdUKEuIVSf2+HuXV71Mol9r35ISdbL KJsCYNS0KesqQSsn9Kk4GwvH5a0+RYQK5ov1FBYj3t5e7Fxm9ZF2pMtLS PiYJwIoFmki72RIsJXRqDbjyH26Sd0gyjBmdrS20MbMm60y7dcNjMJQza s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B6AQD+FH9f/xbLJq1gGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQEBARIBAQEDAwEBAUCBT4F7gR9VATIshD2JAodqCCaaPYFpCwEBAQ8YCww?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGESgKCCyY4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcgEBAQECAQEBIQQRNgs?= =?us-ascii?q?QCxgCAiYCAicwBgEMBgIBAYMiAYJcIA+oJnZ/M4RPQUSDTIE8BoEOKokhhC2?= =?us-ascii?q?BQT+BEAEBJgyCXT6CXAEBAgEBgUGDMYJgBJwEikGRFIJygxSFbIZaiwEFBwM?= =?us-ascii?q?fgxOKBYUWjwGTGoF6iHaVVIFrI4FXMxoIGxU7gmlQGQ2OKxeBAgEJh1aFRD8?= =?us-ascii?q?DMAI1AgYKAQEDCY5IAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,350,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30200436"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 Oct 2020 13:38:04 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.38] ([10.147.24.38]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 098Dc4oH006734; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:38:04 GMT
To: chopps@chopps.org, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
References: <F4960B6C-87E7-4A32-8340-37E2C82A2CBC@chopps.org> <e68c2baa-4fbb-a2dd-aee8-42d8e1de7538@cisco.com> <CF2C1EE5-8A9D-46C4-A30C-57A78144A90D@chopps.org>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <4794a984-38fe-0a85-9622-fb62d12bdb31@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:38:03 +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: <CF2C1EE5-8A9D-46C4-A30C-57A78144A90D@chopps.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.38, [10.147.24.38]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/hkiTPBicjdGWZDn7HX2bFjsQmOk>
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 13:38:20 -0000

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
>>
> 
>