Re: [Lsr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

please see inline:

On 06/12/18 06:36 , Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: 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-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * I share Benjamin's confusion regarding the prefix ranges and would like this
> to be clarified.

what about following text in section 5:

"The range represents the contiguous set of prefixes with the same 
prefix length as specified by the Prefix Length field. The set starts 
with the prefix that is specified by the Address Prefix field. The 
number of prefixes in the set is equal to Range size."


There are also two examples in section 6, one with /128 and one with 
/120 prefix length.

>
> * For the address family, I do have a suggestion. There is an IANA registry for
> Address Family Numbers that can provide the extensibility needed. If future
> extensibility of this space is desired, this might be an option to consider.

no plans to support other AFs, at least not for now.

There are existing implementations and changing the AF code points now 
would result in compatibility issues.

thanks,
Peter
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml
>
>
> .
>