Re: [mpls] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Could shout, Suresh.

Let me think about that for a bit.

Best, Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 06 June 2019 14:53
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-06: No Objection

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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip/



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

Thanks for a clear and well written document. I only had one question. The
document seems to rely on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09 and
draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 to provide the tunnel encapsulation
parameters. These two IGP documents allow for the UDP destination ports to be
specified in the tunnel encapsulation attribute, while RFC7510 requires the use
of 6635 as the destination port. I think it would be good if this draft
specifies what happens if a different UDP port is received in the IGP tunnel
encapsulation attribute. i.e. use the received value, ignore and use 6635, or
fail with error.