Re: [mpls] Extended Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06

[Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

Thank you for detailed review and valuable comments.
Will post -08 revision with changes.
Pls see inline for replies.

Rgds
Shraddha



Juniper Business Use Only
From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 2:45 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Extended Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi,

Please find my comments related to WGLC, that should be addressed before we send the I-D out to our AD.

## Minor
* Section 1, Figure 1 has 3 ASes, but the text says "For example Figure 1 describes an inter-AS network scenario consisting of ASes AS1 and AS2."
<SH> Fixed
* You should add a reference to how EPE SIDs are handled, as your examples use them. Any issue adding text and reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkHhVnw0y$>?
<SH> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam is for defining FEC for verifying the EPE-SIDs themselves. In this draft EPE-SIDs are being used to construct reverse paths. The two topics are quite independent and I don’t see the need to reference the epe-oam draft and create unnecessary reference to another
WG document.

* Section 4.4, Does this needs an IANA registry to allow easy allocation of new flags in future.
<SH> Added.
* Section 6.2; avoid using MUST when you are restating a rule already defined in other RFCs, please use them when it is specific to the new procedure defined in this I-D only.
<SH> ok
* Section 8.1, "It is recommended..", why not RECOMMENDED?
<SH> Updated
* Section 9, "the network devices MUST have mechanisms to prevent of Denial-of-service attacks"; needs a reference to those mechanisms - maybe RFC8209?
<SH> updated
* Section 10, Please expand IANA consideration, provide clear identification for registries and the action that IANA is supposed to make. Currently you only have a list and it is left to the reader/IANA to figure it out. Also please change TBD to TBD1,TBD2,TBD3 as used in Section 4.
<SH> done
    * Also, The correct range should be 32768-49161 for Standards Action!
<SH> The range had to taken from the 0 16838 because if the sub-TLV is not understood there Is a specific return code to be sent.
Have updated accordingly
* Suggest to follow the RFC7942 template for section 12.1
<SH> Its not clear what template to be followed. An example would help.

## Nits
* Expand PMS, SR in the title
* Expand the following on first use
    * AS
    * LSP
    * EPE
    * ABR
    * ASBR
    * TC
    * MBZ
    * CLI
<SH> Fixed
* There are many many grammar errors. Please run the text via a grammar check such as Grammarly.
<SH> Thanks for the input. Grammarly helped a lot.
* Section 9, "across multiple domains or multiple ASes" -> either just say "multiple domains" (without AS) or change it to "across multiple IGP domains or multiple ASes".
* s/MACSEC/MACsec/
* s/evnt/event/
<SH> fixed above

## Past Review
* I did a review at the time of adoption. While some comments were acted on, others were left out [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/b9l6awSH1Jp8DLTI4kx95ym894Q/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/b9l6awSH1Jp8DLTI4kx95ym894Q/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkIDAG6Hl$>]. Request authors to recheck.
<SH> One comment is pending.There was a suggestion to move examples to appendix which I think is a reasonable thing to do.
        Want to know if anyone in WG would have objections.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:24 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi working group.

A very disappointing response to both the IPR poll and the working group last call.

As far as I can see, just one author and the contributor responded to the IPR poll (thanks to them for that).

And no one made any comments one way or the other in the last call despite that also being advertised in SPRING.

Additionally, the draft just expired.

The chairs have discussed this and think it is possible that the holiday season interfered with everyone's work schedule.

So we are extending the last call until 23rd January (two more weeks).

Please understand that if we don't hear support (preferably with reviews) in that time, we will move the document back into the WG from where it will only emerge with evidence of renewed support, and even then at the end of the queue.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 18 December 2023 20:47
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06

Note well: I have inherited Loa's ability to type WGLC announcements 😉

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 18 December 2023 20:08
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Carlos Pignataro' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [mpls] Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06

Hi,

== IPR ==

Draft authors (Shraddha, Kapil, Mukul, Samson, and Nagendra) and
Contributors (Carlos and Zafar), please respond to this email (on list)
saying whether or not you are aware of IPR that applies to this document. If
so, please state whether this IPR has already been disclosed in compliance
with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

Please note that there are two IPR disclosures against the original
individual I-Ds (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3937/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3937/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkHFRYQ5-$> and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5234/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5234/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkMfSkxUl$>), but no explicit disclosure has been
made against this document.

If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR
that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Mach, as document shepherd, will collate the responses.

== Working Group Last Call ==

This email starts a three week last call ending on 9th January at 9am GMT
(an extended last call to cover the Festive period).

We solicit all opinions on whether this document is ready to move forward,
but we are particularly keen to hear reasoned comments with associated
reviews.

Mach, as document shepherd, will keep track of comments to ensure they are
addressed.

== Implementation Status ==

While it is not a requirement (and implementations are not required), it is
very helpful to know the present and planned implementation status of
documents as they progress to IESG evaluation.

Everyone is encouraged to report any implementation status that they are
aware of, and the authors are encouraged to add an Implementation Status
section to the draft per RFC 7942 even if that is just a note that no
implementations are known at the moment.


Many thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkGnGqZMk$>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkGnGqZMk$>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwN3BBepkygqgUdOp3H4S-t2LoMtwUuEzFn_V_TL4Yk7UG4FwVzOPTiUEuGNFjHzcVpjgrmec-QpkGnGqZMk$>