Re: [mpls] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-10

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Oh, I should add...

Please be sure to clean up all of the nits reported by idnits
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id
/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-10.txt

The only things you can get away with are the things that look like
references, but aren't.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 06 February 2024 21:18
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [mpls] Shepherd review of
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-10

Hi,

I have taken over as shepherd for your document. That necessitates me
jumping in with a "slightly late" review. But I guess all reviews are
helpful.

If you can spin a new version, I can pass the document on to the AD.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Throughout the document there are a number of cases of missing spaces
before or after round brackets or commas. Please check and fix.

---

Abstract

s/Segment Routing (SR)/The Segment Routing (SR)/
s/Autonomous Systems(AS)/Autonomous Systems (ASes)/
s/with simple/with a simple/

---

Please move the section on Requirements Language down to become 1.2.

---

1.

I think this section really should start with some text and not leap in
with a figure. Figure 1 is not referenced until the 3rd paragraph, so
this should be easy to do.

The figure could use a key for:
AS
ASBR
P
PE
PMS

---

1. para 1

s/Autonomous Systems either/Autonomous Systems (ASes) either/
s/Segment Routing/Segment Routing (SR)/
s/Autonomous systems(AS)./ASes./
s/Identifiers(SID)/Identifiers (SIDs)/

---

1. para 2

s/with MPLS/with an MPLS/
s/Autonomous system/AS/
s/Autonomous Systems(AS)/ASes/

---

1. para 3

s/(EPE-SID)/(EPE-SIDs)/
s/For example in Figure 1/For example, in Figure 1,/

---

1. para 3

   It is advantageous for operations to be
   able to perform LSP ping and traceroute procedures on these inter-AS
   SR-MPLS paths.

- s/operations/operators/  ???
- "It is advantageous" feels a bit unsupported. What are the advantages?
  Perhaps "... in order to detect and diagnose failed deliveries and to
  determine the actual path that traffic takes through the network."

---

1.

You have both 'traceroute' and 'Traceroute'. Please pick one and apply
it to the whole document.

---

1. para 4

   That is because there is no IP connectivity to the source address of
   the ping packet, which is in a different AS from the packet's
   destination.

I know what you mean, but as stated this is not completely true (and not
always true, in any case). Maybe...

   That is because there might not always be IP connectivity from a
   responding node back to the source address of the ping packet when
   the responding node is in a different AS from the source of the ping.

---

1. para 5

s/out the MPLS/out MPLS/
s/requires PMS/requires the PMS/

---

1. para 5

   This mechanism is operationally
   very heavy and requires PMS to be capable of building a huge number
   of GRE tunnels, which may not be feasible.

Presumably...

   This mechanism is operationally
   very heavy and requires the PMS to be capable of building a huge
   number of GRE tunnels or installing the necessary static routes,
   which may not be feasible.

---

1. para 6

s/segment routing/SR/

---

1. para 7

s/[RFC7743] mechanism/The [RFC7743] mechanism/
s/in slow path/on the slow path/

---

1. para 8

   This mechanism uses
   MPLS path and no changes are required in the forwarding path.

I cannot parse this. Maybe s/MPLS path/MPLS LSPs/ ?

---

1. para 8

s/Reply path TLV/Reply Path TLV/   (twice)
s/segment routing/SR/  (please check the rest of the doc!)

---

1.1

Nothing wrong with what you have written, but RFC 8402 defines the term
"SR domain" and distinguishes it from an "IGP domain". Upon opening your
document, I was confused by your use of "domain" until:
- Tony Li put me straight
- I read section 1.1

I wonder whether there are ways you can make the distinction clearer
sooner in the document.

---

1.1

s/Autonomous System (AS)/AS/

---

2.

Please use Title Case for the section header.

---

2.

Again, please don't begin the section with a figure.
The text needs to make reference to the figure.

---

2.

s/Reply path TLV/a Reply Path TLV/
s/in echo reply/in an echo reply

---

3.

OLD
and PMS/Head-end
NEW
and a PMS/Head-end
END

---

3. 

s/Reply path TLV/Reply Path TLV/   (please check the rest of the doc)
s/Implementations may/Implementations MAY/  (twice)
s/Command Line Interface(CLI)/Command Line Interface (CLI)/
sIPV4/IPv4/
s/dual- stack/dual-stack/

---

4.

OLD
   The motivation has been to keep the definitions
   same as in [RFC9256] with minimal modifications if it is needed.
NEW
   The intention was to keep the definitions as close to
   those in [RFC9256] as possible, with modifications only when needed.
END

---

4.

s/segment sub-TLV/Segment Sub-TLV/   (please check whole doc)

---

4.2

Not all confusing to have TBD1, TBD3, and TBD4 (but no TBD2)  :-)

Aha! This is because you have a "TBA2" instead. Maybe change TBA to TBD.
Except, you also have a TBA1.

---

4.1

   The following applies to the Type-1 Segment sub-TLV:

I think s/Type-1/Type-A/
Similar issues in 4.2 and 4.3.
Also, the section headings should (presumably) be s/Type A/Type-A/ etc.

---

4.1, 4.2, 4.3

Compare the requirements for the Reserved fields. Why are they
different?

---

4.2

When the Algo is present it is used to derive the Label. Is that the
SID label? How does that conflict with the SID field (if present)?

Ditto 4.3

---

4.4 and 10.2

It's not illegal, it's just a bit odd that you are requesting bit 1 to
be assigned and not but 0. Any reason?

---

4.4

   Unused bits in the Flag octet SHOULD be set to zero upon transmission
   and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

I think you need this to be MUST be zero on transmission. Otherwise you
break the definition of new bits in the future (new bit has meaning but
legacy implementation sometimes sets the bit to 1).

---

4.4

   A-Flag applies to Segment Types C, D.  If A-Flag appears with any
   other Segment Type, it MUST be ignored.

Is this too strong? It may confuse future extensions that want to 
define new Segment Types and use the A flag. Perhaps all you are 
concerned about is the use of the A flag with Type-A segments?

---

5.

   SRv6 dataplane is not in the scope of this document and will be
   addressed in a separate document.

Will it, though?
Either s/will/may/ or delete from "and" to the end.

---

6.1

   In the inter-AS scenario,the procedures described in this document
   should be used to specify the return path.

Is this "should" or "SHOULD"?
You are allowing variation (by using should not must) so you need to say
why an implementation/deployment would choose to do something different.

---

6.1 has several acceptable uses of "MUST". But I don't find what a 
receiver should do if one of these is violated. For example,

   LSP ping initiator MUST
   set the Reply Mode of the echo request to 5

So, it the receiver sets a Reply Mode set to another value, what
happens? 6.2 might cover this, but doesn't quite.

---

6.3

   The responder MAY check the
   reachability of the top label in its own Label Forwarding Information
   Base (LFIB) before sending the echo reply.

A fine use of MAY, but you should indicate how/why an implementation 
would make this choice.

---

6.3

   In certain scenarios,the
   head-end may choose to send Type C/Type D segments consisting of IPV4
   address or IPv6 address.

"may" or "MAY"?
Which scenarios and why make that choice?

---

6.3

   Optionally SID may also be associated with
   the Type C/Type D segment.

"Optionally" or "It is OPTIONAL"?
How is his choice determined?

---

6.3

   The reply path return code must be set as described in section 7.4 of
   [RFC7110].  The Reply Path TLV must be included in an echo reply
   indicating the specified return path that the echo reply message is
   required to follow as described in section 5.3 of [RFC7110].

"must" or "MUST"?  (twice)

---

6.4

Is it possible that the TTL pre-increment is 255?

---

7.

   Example topologies given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 will be used

I think that your examples here all use ASBRs, so you are actually
limiting yourself to Figure 1 except for the final paragraph of
7.2.2?

---

7.

   IGPs like OSPF/ISIS

Are there many IGPs like OSPF and ISIS?

--

7.1

s/mpls/MPLS/

You have some non-ASCII characters

---

7.2.1

You have a couple of cases of "MUST" in this section. But this is an
example, not normative text. So I think "will" is good enough.

---

8. and subsections

Please use Title Case for the section headings

---

8.1

Is "to traceroute" really a verb leading to the participle
"tracerouted"?

---

8.1

This seems very late to be introducing the expansion of ABR which you 
have used before.

---

8.1

   In cases when SRGB is not uniform across the network,
   it is RECOMMENDED to add a Type C or a Type D segment.

Fair enough, but why might an implementation choose to do otherwise and
what are the benefits/implications?

---

10.1

You cite "[IANA]" but have no matching reference

---

10.2

I don't think that Figure 7 needs to be a figure.

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls