[mpls] Re: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)

["Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 7:27 AM
To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Hi Gunter,

Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see inline for replies.
Ver -19 will address your comments.

Rgds
Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 8:01 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18: (with COMMENT)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Gunter Van de Velde 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!C_B80Vu-g8QDDIImZKZxAkWKTQglHHrj0KUUuPHenDZWnwJkvidk6z40D19zAX58lC2bqTNbzX80_lQ_$
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!C_B80Vu-g8QDDIImZKZxAkWKTQglHHrj0KUUuPHenDZWnwJkvidk6z40D19zAX58lC2bqTNbzd1D8z0K$



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

# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18

Many thanks to Matthew Bocci, Shuping Peng and  Joel Halpern for their Routing Directorate reviews and Tarek Saad for the shepherd writeup.

Please find https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C_B80Vu-g8QDDIImZKZxAkWKTQglHHrj0KUUuPHenDZWnwJkvidk6z40D19zAX58lC2bqTNbzVjkRhtX$
documenting the handling of ballots.

##Supporting the Discuss from John Scudder about confederations ASes

#GENERIC COMMENTS
#================
##The draft has been discussed well within the MPLS WG and is easy to read.

#DETAILED COMMENTS
#=================
##classified as [minor] and [major]

244        Local BGP Router ID :
245
246        4 octet unsigned integer representing the BGP Identifier of the
247        advertising node as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

[minor]
Maybe add reference to rfc6793 (BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System
(AS) Number Space)
<SH>RFC 6793 It applies to AS number. I'll add reference there.

295        Length : variable based on IPv4/IPv6 interface address.  Length
296        excludes the length of Type and Length fields.For IPv4 interface
297        addresses length will be 28 octets.  In case of IPv6 address length
298        will be 52 octets.

[major]
What if the length is different from 28 or 52? how will a node receiving such information process or contain the error situation?

[minor]
Would normative language here be considered useful for implementers?
<SH> The length check validation is described in the EPE-validation section.
I updated text a bit
I hope that is sufficient. Let me know.

300        Adj-Type : Set to 1 when the Adjacency Segment is IPv4 Set to 2 when
301        the Adjacency Segment is IPv6

[major]
What if for example the length (see comment above) is set to 52 (=IPv6) and the adj-Type is set to IPv4? What needs to be done? is there a validation that is taking place? does the combination of length and Adj-Type follow certain approved normative combinations?
<SH> Updated length validation in EPE Validation section.

303        RESERVED : 3 octets.  MUST be zero when sending, and agnored on
304        receiving.

[minor]
s/agnored/ignored/
Are the bits RESERVED or UNUSED? (according IANA registries)

383        Length : variable based on the number of elements in the set.  The
384        length field does not include the length of Type and Length fields.

[minor]
I suspect that the length is expressed in octets similar as the TBD1 and TBD2.
This should be clarified in the text.
<SH> ok

410        Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on.

[minor]
Clarification rewrite about the load balancing aspect:
s/Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on/The number of remote ASes over which the set SID performs load balancing/ <SH>ok

416     5.  EPE-SID FEC validation

[minor]
This section discusses validation and uses numbers. While it should be already trivial for an implementer to understand that octets are intended, it may be worthwhile to spell it out explicitly so that there is no confusion and by accident bits, nibbles, words or something else obscure would be used instead

<SH> ok