[mpls] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)

[Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deb,

Thanks for the review and comments.
Ver -19 will address your comments.

Rgds
Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 12:41 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HO8gY_5LV3cMPCziLYXevNeHgmJ5U4moQ6eymHFt6LGDTHF4Tj0st81kB95IvkssJGwlzD4ZBHCClSeR$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HO8gY_5LV3cMPCziLYXevNeHgmJ5U4moQ6eymHFt6LGDTHF4Tj0st81kB95IvkssJGwlzD4ZBKlNVAg8$



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 7:  I think this could stand to be separated into a few paragraphs.  As it stands, it is hard to read and harder to understand.

Maybe something like this:
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer Engineering purposes or for inter-AS links between co-operating ASes. When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get processed.

When EPE-SIDs are created for egress TE links where the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets arriving from external world to reach the control plane. In such deployments MPLS OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS that receives the MPLS OAM packet.

In MPLS traceroute applications, when the AS boundary is crossed with the EPE-SIDs, the FEC stack is changed. [RFC8287] does not mandate that the initiator upon receiving an MPLS Echo Reply message that includes the FEC Stack Change TLV with one or more of the original segments being popped remove a corresponding FEC(s) from the Target FEC Stack TLV in the next (TTL+1) traceroute request.

If an initiator does not remove the FECs belonging to the previous AS that has traversed, it MAY expose the internal AS information to the following AS being traversed in traceroute.

<SH> will do