Re: [mpls] More comments from another Reviewer//Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 03 January 2020 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 2530A120045; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:38:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pDCV3CkRDkjZ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6536E120013; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id c127so7380952wme.1; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 09:38:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ZmAgKsi5zpVQbl4sP+cypmxbMvlsMK9+hNmXVvAZmb4=; b=G+Uhkp7krdI6i/7GMhRyPL9M29gUbV6zbcviyD/m1LcjADWOIwr7R6KZxYfbAuYeXH hoK1T6b9N4+yCKkUgzByYjuVizaIx7vC2xdLSg3wf0O4BfN77rDi5rxjr71tsQlPGesE yHkpEUT5A98eTY9GcdVJp4o/pgJpLtkpV2eb8Z2lhSKXTTXPhhhy2rCVjXOqhGdL+JDh rdEKoLt8zfoZTrBOeeFaoy0KS1Stjn2QWC7x2xmAKnZP6bdh5Gex22X9P2QfX4JLauSS aYqVnp2X4Qelg7+lNXqYs9rkVQUfuFClLxaJguy4E1/PhbITqQctvdjtLyzx7xHBOove jeoA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ZmAgKsi5zpVQbl4sP+cypmxbMvlsMK9+hNmXVvAZmb4=; b=TKPhQfabuKi3qFkfE4ZyTyoXehstAdUjBATKNvkriPTuaiWPq5x6tDO/+nc55CIpAv TAdqf4XDlnmYhEf61SxVPnVArBoqDkZM5vrf9iaIMFhIj2MXCMIaxnplPn68PMD/VZgD 4it0kJFMDFJKpe3jtv4o1xe8zIlAnAH2irw2OUo+ZoRBfXCZzXOKfgxeqZUA9ya0jr7w CCZKFDJYb+BCkQG7xHZ19QCgUWuOLllJ7t9BwlcmxAWvg25Pf8ZeKWCZHqoxGb26HXVk tlZlvA1Jhl0ZgeQyzcmBsVxbqsftc+aoXUwo8Ej+L5/KkV132lAWNi4qkROsSD2CizAc p5FQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU7Y3utYe5pWEGrMYURtyUyL17ZkiqHslekRKAyEZRdvMbdA2dP VmgwajwSKhojloxR0IoYmIQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzvQDcnk08usAlyd6zW3xulwi1V8IvnEwEpT+axER2towpxfdKwqCTlSiIHUluCHiJwduftRQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b7c4:: with SMTP id h187mr20848242wmf.105.1578073108981; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 09:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:3894:cb5f:d37a:1d9c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d8sm59932132wrx.71.2020.01.03.09.38.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Jan 2020 09:38:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5B1B07B9-8233-4486-BB67-BF1D2C928650@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_68285BAF-EE71-4960-84D7-7A9433DBEB0B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:38:25 +0000
In-Reply-To: <6a4cb718-6da7-1dac-5d23-c39f8ae5273e@pi.nu>
Cc: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, "draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control@ietf.org" <draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
References: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B93BD37@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <6a4cb718-6da7-1dac-5d23-c39f8ae5273e@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/OWWz8USPVLixcGRCqRvnIiH5gkE>
Subject: Re: [mpls] More comments from another Reviewer//Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control
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: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 17:38:32 -0000

> 
> The use of "first bit" and "next bits" could be confusing since it may
> vary by context, e.g. order on the wire and descriptive text. I think
> it would be better to use LSB and MSB.
> 
> BTW - I quite like the figure, if for no other reason that it give a
> name for the R-bit.
> 
> To the authors: Query/Response indicator is fine in this context, but is
> it possible that it might be confused with other Query/Response
> indicators? Do we want to talk about "SFL Query/Response indicator" as
> the general term?
> 

This has strong RFC6374 heritage so I was trying to maintain as much commonality as possible. You might deduce from some of the errors that the text started out using RFC6374 mkd as a template.

I propose to we leave it unchanged.

Best regards

Stewart