Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 23 May 2019 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E5C120113; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0tMIshcJFPJ; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAD28120072; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4NGFXf5026160; Thu, 23 May 2019 17:15:33 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5077222042; Thu, 23 May 2019 17:15:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A2A82203D; Thu, 23 May 2019 17:15:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (4.196.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.196.4] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4NGFRqM023950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 May 2019 17:15:32 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Alvaro Retana'" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "'Loa Andersson'" <loa@pi.nu>, <draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip@ietf.org>, <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <155252870218.24914.13341927320393340552.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <070801d501db$24c08500$6e418f00$@olddog.co.uk> <CAMMESsyGTG4=HtmwCr_01rD9P=LXRi6qB4UAX1KQq6_UOAeb+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyGTG4=HtmwCr_01rD9P=LXRi6qB4UAX1KQq6_UOAeb+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 17:15:26 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <042a01d51182$bf7d7ab0$3e787010$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_042B_01D5118B.2142A600"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGXr/5JRm+SoBSwKycFVDyv9ALddgGUTF3aAiKVwEem1erocA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.196.4
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24634.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.147-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--24.147-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24634.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--24.146600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oCj5caaCQynxIbpQ8BhdbPVY7U3NX8JgyJnnD1Feeo6qvcIF1TcLYBsS zjQ0eXjf75e58LU26kuT18PM85j1OQ5k8VHnDhOxPxuOLiA4BvnzDFXwlHc2qPRbENgKrsY9oua XE/reSZk+yTvI8IlONz6FwO7AqkoudhbrF28nm8y/inf4HhMre7zETYfYS4xZIYP4Wne9kdSm1t kPJtlk0O5VQXivXcYR5JKRrCKVWL2095XvZRQZTxlJRfzNw8afAeCR7YmppCyZt08TfNy6OJxem /bPuNblOwKZu9I6HF2/UPF9R7xi/T3qUaC7D/bC71Wx2uUbPLdDr8MVm6DK3bv81BNUjUj5zEVD Gnc+EfKahG/i8Ja1Y7dYFVfIRaXS7zgtUFe2gc5ZwLSBgxghaPngX/aL8PCNI9L0l0rdbj9uBjx DCXijzuVLYGUlXRjSV+4hGDe9WkYUpJC1g+xv1yQ7ls378/zHXvHxKQWdhFQTiSW9r3PknFZTbo Mx7GZjR2A2jweHdPsc3wTlX0NIpwGbJEIeoS19SZJFFtJz2zehHXbm3upNfp6fSoF3Lt+MuahDI NRdcFr6Ay573CTimN/HR9BelWKULDC3FGTHI3eL6bUMM+bbIvJKfaMQf91lkgLgI79LRf7kakAM W1g/fuLzNWBegCW21WdIO+NJS/kEs/H1wMysptp/U3XwL5kCsOzOncrmCoMpoIlOw5zdsNh2IF7 sDH4odD0yIZeUZwlA2HXoCAN/cRw2W+lgMQ9r
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/K0Csvv4RsZfLSr2oR8ATOEnN1pc>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:15:41 -0000

Hi,

 

Thanks for this.

 

Looks simple, and -06 will be along shortly to change…

> Just one detail (non-blocking): the third step (§3.1) says "If A
> and E are in different IGP domains…”. Strictly speaking, specially
> because we could be dealing with BGP, that should be “different
> routing domains” — while most of the time different autonomous
> systems, even under the same administration, will use different
> IGP domains, that is not always the case.  Generalizing to 
> “routing domains” sounds better to me.

Yup.

> The text changed from (in -03): 
>
> "The tunnel selected MUST have its remote end point (destination)
> address equal to the address of the next SR-MPLS capable node
> along the path (i.e., the egress of the active node segment).”
>
> …to:
> "The tunnel selected MUST have its remote end point (destination)
> address equal to the address of the next SR-MPLS capable node
> identified as being on the SR path (i.e., the egress of the active
> node segment).”
:
:
> My problem is not with the text you changed, but with the clarification:
> "the egress of the active node segment”.  Specifically, I think that the
> characterization as a *node segment* is wrong.
:
:
> As I suggested before, taking out the clarifying phrase will satisfy my
> point.  Also will s/the egress of the active node segment/the egress of
> the active segment

I apologise!

Sometimes you can’t see your own errors unless you have your nose rubbed in them while being slapped about the head with a wet lettuce ☹

Yes, “active node segment” is wrong and “active segment” is very fine.

Thanks for all the work to get this document right.

Best,

Adrian