Re: [Lsr] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with COMMENT)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Adam -

V25 of the draft has been published addressing your comments.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 10:23 PM
> To: Adam Roach <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Christian Hopps
> <[e-mail]>; Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> extensions-24: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Adam -
> 
> Thanx for the review.
> 
> Responses inline.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 10:03 PM
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Christian Hopps
> > <[e-mail]>; Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> > extensions-24: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> extensions/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a
> small
> > number of minor comments.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > §2.4:
> >
> > >  o  1 octet of RESERVED
> >
> > For the sake of making this byte potentially usable in the future, consider
> > adding text specifying something like "MUST be set to 0 on transmission,
> > and MUST be ignored on reception."
> >
> [Les:] Will do.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > §2.4.6:
> >
> > >  10.1.1/24, Prefix-SID: Index 51
> > >  10.1.2/24, Prefix-SID: Index 52
> > >  10.1.3/24, Prefix-SID: Index 53
> > >  10.1.4/24, Prefix-SID: Index 54
> > >  10.1.5/24, Prefix-SID: Index 55
> > >  10.1.6/24, Prefix-SID: Index 56
> > >  10.1.7/24, Prefix-SID: Index 57
> >
> > Please change these addresses to ranges reserved by IANA for
> > documentation purposes rather than those reserved for private use.
> >
> [Les:] Sorry, but this is not possible. :-)
> Example 2 is trying to show:
> 
> 1)What the TLV encoding looks like when the prefix length is /24 or less. In
> such a case all four bytes of the prefix are not included in the encoded
> address - only the number of bytes necessary to fully specify the significant
> bits of the prefix are encoded.
> 2)With a range greater than 1, what is the prefix to SID mappings which result
> from the advertisement.
> 
> This necessitates showing that it is the usable bits of the prefix that are
> incremented when mapping to the next SID in the range - in this example
> adding "0.0.1.0" to the prefix.
> RFC 5737 only reserves three disjoint /24 ranges - so this example cannot be
> supported using just the reserved addresses.
> 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > §2.4.6:
> >
> > >  2001:DB8:1/48, Prefix-SID: Index 151
> > >  2001:DB8:2/48, Prefix-SID: Index 152
> > >  2001:DB8:3/48, Prefix-SID: Index 153
> > >  2001:DB8:4/48, Prefix-SID: Index 154
> >
> > Please change these IPv6 addresses to use lowercase hex digits.
> > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-4.3
> >
> 
> [Les:] Will do.
> 
>    Les