[mpls] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mahesh,

Thanks for review.
Pls see inline..


Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 9:43 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-17: Discuss

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!GolwqGFOueI5bHpNtpLJ4MdwwHnGCPHAgmYUSxb3_ZhIdL78J94wy0zSphGsk4fClVtNEVvBTuVclS6y$
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!GolwqGFOueI5bHpNtpLJ4MdwwHnGCPHAgmYUSxb3_ZhIdL78J94wy0zSphGsk4fClVtNEVvBTp5sTlIV$



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fear not. The DISCUSS I am holding seems like an oversight and should be easy to address.

Section 2, paragraph 0
> 2.  Theory of Operation

In response to the OPSDIR review performed by Tianran Zhou, thanks Tianran, the authors proposed additional text to describe what happens when the packet arrives in a non-cooperating domain. The authors promised the changes as part of -18 version of the draft but never posted that version. Holding a DISCUSS to make sure the latest version of the document is being reviewed.
<SH> Yes. Thanks for the reminder. I'll post -18 now.


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

Section 5, paragraph 1
>    When a remote ASBR of the EPE-SID advertisement receives the MPLS OAM
>    packet with top FEC being the EPE-SID, it MUST perform validity
>    checks on the content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV.  The basic length
>    check should be performed on the received FEC.

Is the should a SHOULD? What happens if the basic length check is not performed?
<SH> Length check is mostly left to implementations. I am not sure if normative text is needed here.

Section 10, paragraph 0
> 10.  APPENDIX

The section formatting for the Appendix does not look correct. It is showing up in the normative section of the draft, instead of appearing as <back> material.
Same for References.
<SH> Moved it after references in <back> section pls check ver -18

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GolwqGFOueI5bHpNtpLJ4MdwwHnGCPHAgmYUSxb3_ZhIdL78J94wy0zSphGsk4fClVtNEVvBTkDsMfLm$ ), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions.

Section 4.1, paragraph 21
> o validate the incoming interface for a OAM packet and if the remote descript
>                                       ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

<sH> fixed