Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr

Thanks to Rakesh for having addressed my comments.
Best regards,
- Xufeng

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Xufeng for the review.
> Please see replies inline with <RG>...
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:12 PM Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Authors and WG,
>>
>>
>> I have reviewed the document draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr and have the
>> following comments.
>>
>>
>> 1. Using the existing mechanism defined by RFC 6374 for SR PM is natural,
>> logical, and worth proceeding.
>>
>
> <RG> Many thanks.
>
>>
>> 2. The 2nd paragraph in Sec 2.3 describes the case P2MP, but the context
>> is the reference topology depicted as Figure 2, which does not clearly
>> cover the P2MP case. Some additional clarification or a different topology
>> may illustrate better.
>>
>
> <RG> Moved the text to the relevant section 7 along with other P2MP texts
> to avoid confusion.
>
>>
>> 3. In the last paragraph in Sec 4.2 describes the use of Destination
>> Address TLV. Does the statement “can be sent in the probe query message”
>> mean that this is optional? (Is this MAY or MUST?) An implementer would
>> like to know the clear requirement.
>>
>
> <RG> Added  "MAY".
>
>>
>> 4.. Sec 4.3.3. describes the loopback measure mode, which requires the
>> responder to collect timestamps t1 and t4. Such a behavior does not seem to
>> follow RFC 6374. Based on Sec 3.5.3. of RFC 6374, “no support for delay
>> measurement is required at the responder at all, other than the ability to
>> recognize a DM query that includes this object and return it unmodified.”
>>
>
> <RG> The responder does not add t1 and t4 (as per Reference Topology). The
> responder simply forwards the probe packet.
>
>>
>> 5.. The last sentence of Sec 4.3.3. excludes the loopback mode for
>> SR-MPLS Links. Is there any reason for the exclusion?
>>
>>
>>
> <RG> Removed.
>
> 6. Most of the document describes the procedures to use RFC 6374. The only
>> additions to RFC 6374 are Sec. 4.4. and Sec. 6.2., but these two sections
>> are embedded in the other sections on procedures and use cases. For an
>> implementer, I’d hope to see these two sections separated from others so
>> that it would be clear what are needed to implement on top of the protocol
>> defined in RFC 6374.
>>
>
> <RG> Keeping them at the current place provides context and continuity for
> reading. It is highlighted in Abstract and Introduction that these two TLVs
> are new.
> I am afraid, moving them elsewhere may lose the context. Please advise if
> you have a preference.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Xufeng
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>