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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shraddha,

Snipping to open points...

>
> * 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.
>
>
>
Dhruv: You are correct. But then what would be the best reference for EPE
SIDs? Note that RFC 9087 uses different terms. In the example what you call
EPE SID should it be called PeerAdj SID? Or am I missing something....



>
> * Suggest to follow the RFC7942 template for section 12.1
>
> <SH> Its not clear what template to be followed. An example would help.
>
>
Dhruv: Template is defined at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7942#section-2
Example would be:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11.html#section-6

--

Looking at the IANA section, just one more suggestion -

- Section 10.1, Reference should be "this document" of "Section X of this
document", just "Section X" would be incorrect! Also better to say in text
that the below allocation should be via standard action range of 0-16383
instead of putting it in the table, where it can cause confusion.
- Section 10.3, Same comment as above.

Thanks!
Dhruv