Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa, WG,

I support the adoption.

I have some comments that can be handled now or post-adoption.

   - I find the use of term domain to mean just the IGP area (see abstract
   and section 1.1) to be an issue. The title of the document says
   inter-domain BTW. My suggestion would be to keep the term "domain" as a
   generic term and have a sub-section for inter-AS and inter-area.
   - Section 3
      - This text
         - *While using the procedures described in this document, the
         reply mode MUST be set to 5 and Return Path TLV MUST be
included in the
         echo request message.*
         - This is coming from 7110, thus it is better to refer to it and
         not state it as a new text with normative MUST in this I-D. This needs
         fixing at multiple places.
         - Also, add “Reply via Specified Path” as the meaning for reply
         mode 5.
      - Section 4
      - Type 1,3,4 and the Type in the sub-TLV which when assigned by IANA
      (will be of different values) is bound to be a source of confusion.
      - I was not able to locate the registry “Sub-TLV Target FEC stack
      TLV”, should this be “Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21” instead?
      - This text for RESERVED
         - *SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.*
         - This is quite unusual. Why SHOULD? Why "unset"? I suggest
         changing it to “Reserved (MBZ)” with “MUST be set to zero
when sending;
         MUST be ignored on receipt.”
      - Add references for the meaning of the fields Label, TC, S, TTL.
      - This text for SR Algorithm
         - *When A-Flag is not encoded, this field SHOULD be unset on
         transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.*
         - It could be better worded as when A-flag is unset, this field
         has no meaning and thus MUST be set to zero on transmission
and ignored on
         receipt.
      - This text for Segment Flags
         - *The Segment Types described above MAY contain following flags
         in the “Flags” field…*
         - MAY is incorrect! It is not an optional field. Do you mean to
         suggest that someone may not understand the meaning of the
flag instead?
      - Section 8
         - Avoid assigning a value (6,7) for the new reply path return
         code, leave that for IANA. This is also missing in the IANA section.
      - Suggestion: Consider moving examples to the appendix to simplify
      the core of the I-D.

<https://notes.ietf.org/#Nits>Nits

   -

   Fix Nits -
   https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-04.txt
   -

   Expand on first use
   - PMS
      - LSP
      - BGP-LU
      - OAM
      - SRGB
      - LFIB
      - BGP-LS
   -

   Use updated Requirement Language as per RFC 8174
   -

   s/ip/IP/g
   -

   Suggestion: Consider using SR-MPLS instead of SR for clarity throughout
   the document!
   -

   s/mpls/MPLS/
   -

   s/Pure/pure/
   -

   s/Section Section 4.4/Section 4.4/g
   -

   s/Return path TLV/Reply Path (RP) TLV/g
   -

   s/RFC 4379/[RFC4379]/

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:29 PM Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Working Group,
>
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
>
> draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam
>
> as a MPLS working group document.
>
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list ([e-mail]) Please give a technical
> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
>
> There is one IPR disclosure against this document. The data tracker says
> that there are 2 disclosure, but that depends on that the IPR holder
> updated the disclosure when the filename of the was changed.
>
> All the authors and contributors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list
> that they are unaware of any other IPRs that relates to this document.
>
> The working group adoption poll ends November 30, 2021.
>
> /Loa
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>