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

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 15 June 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@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 B81FB3A07F6; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Twhekw-pTa_E; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 7F9C33A07F5; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id x27so10058911lfg.9; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fxP/UbiYc6q75hgV3Vu4aHdC+GNrPhtzMGTP7v8GwkU=; b=W5O0BhEOCC4fgdjbnef+a9moAe5iuTw2aIyC9VpTLscJfSAsm9O7yO5CoG3xhcx2dY jE7bp5ovWrBAW+InMaI8Qy6/+uO/WjUY9n243yI4cxh05YcZXMtBxzPMF4t3qas9gkVD Bf1tVtpaIpiRTpoxuONvv9kTeqoULe8LrPUWeNCiia2k2GGJNx8UyFAX5OHRB13zHJLR mO1Hcn6elsumBPB8OiQBtgv2Y0Oc3PEkJiiZ/jZtGHr1UPpmvBA1EIICS/s4ba/dm8l9 WpLFR+1Q54zrVZcYdi5ZrMRnVc7uUMuabH+TZ8jTgrO53tz1qnVe53kHa9BELlCqqKlq 9low==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fxP/UbiYc6q75hgV3Vu4aHdC+GNrPhtzMGTP7v8GwkU=; b=MSTTb0HgPZoa10iZ/dPSZUUiH51CVzObi+qPHJKKDl13NsFydTEngAsEasPbO9gf31 yIMLO7X3ylMHnQtoymzlLclT0tJdaVoax7fyRZf0YUsztnpnpaFp1NC509OUConVp4vK 6Tcdc09OtaWll8E9W6CeRB4b/98PDyxZrhdENRi3aHpYDdNLcyfyOVhudi0r53ctXV9+ ZloRFgCMdUjYyLhq4uy90Ai5k0v3CxchM7bKwg8Vx8Q6HLC0A8flGjae/8UK7KsacsuT QJPR0/P9ONuJLKzjucl9SyILJkMCv/Cxe51/xI+EsY//18zdnJGmGynmd1N5UJ/hVTV0 ZkFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531apH6/btXrUnZlOB+FnRepoh7s0h38fPaP4ZEmYnaOj9vbcfiJ INpmxt1eAxNYuAFN6AWeQuwCdRLnXMyJ1pQuYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHsy0jCbyKYe1Sf0HUSy3TLtXtSz31P5dyKsxCTOtxSkJZOjo4VMobp8DsD9Czdi5j6GKe116blMqcF3/nMwQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:ae14:: with SMTP id f20mr4523160lfc.17.1592242875326; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CH2PR19MB40241A395AAD7976CD74FE11FCA40@CH2PR19MB4024.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <0E90B613-60F1-4F35-A373-FFB996441C70@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <0E90B613-60F1-4F35-A373-FFB996441C70@juniper.net>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:41:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6emWA4mJrcOrJZq_Ujr_9zv++88X+RiqT3_QJ7iVoE+EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yimin Shen <yshen=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org" <draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "huaimo.chen@futurewei.com" <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fae4cc05a822ee69"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/qLi8SxF-0mqFzfwKL1-hznxQEUg>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 17:41:21 -0000

Thanks Yimin for the review and your comments.

Please see comments inline with <RG>..

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:04 PM Yimin Shen <yshen=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> I was assigned as a reviewer for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr. I have now
> completed my review.
>
>
>
> The document addresses packet loss and delay measurement for SR-MPLS, by
> building it on top of the mechanism specified by RFC 6374. This is a useful
> feature. The document is coherent and technically sound. I think it is
> ready for WG adoption.
>

<RG> Many thanks.


>
> In the meanwhile, I do have a few questions and comments, and hope they
> could be addressed by the authors.
>
>
>
> [1] The document uses terms “SR link(s)” and “SR-MPLS link(s)”
> interchangeably. I’d like to suggest to change “SR link(s)” to “SR-MPLS
> link(s)”, for consistency and also as “SR links” include SRv6 links which
> are out of the scope.
>

<RG> Ok, updated the text in the document.

>
>
> [2] The term “SR-MPLS links” needs further clarification. Does it mean
> MPLS links (in an SR-MPLS environment), or there is something more specific
> ? Either case, please clarify whether the procedures for “SR-MPLS links” in
> this document are actually the same as those for MPLS links in RFC 6374, or
> high light the changes explicitly.
>

<RG> It is MPLS links, in an SR-MPLS environment. Updated the text in the
document.


>
> [3]  In sections 4.4 and 6.2, respectively:
>
>
>
>    The Return Path TLV is Mandatory when used.  If responder does not
>
>    support this TLV, it MUST return Error 0x17: Unsupported Mandatory
>
>    TLV Object.
>
>
>
>    The Block Number TLV is Mandatory when used.  If responder does not
>
>    support this TLV, it MUST return Error 0x17: Unsupported Mandatory
>
>    TLV Object.
>
>
>
> Is it mandatory that both the sender and the responder must support this
> document ?
>

<RG> These TLVs have Types allocated from the Mandatory Type range for RFC
6374. The support for them is optional.



> Is it possible for a sender (supporting the document) to inter-op with a
> responder supporting only RFC 6374, i.e. a mixed mode ? If the mixed mode
> is allowed, it would deserve some text (or a section) to explain and
> clarify the procedures and applicabily.
>

<RG> Added a new section 10 for Compatibility in the document.

Thanks,
Rakesh



>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -- Yimin Shen
>
> Juniper Networks
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 10:46 AM
> *To: *Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>et>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com" <
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>gt;, "huaimo.chen@futurewei.com" <
> huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
> *Cc: *"mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, "
> draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org" <
> draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *MPLS-RT experts review for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Yimin, Xufeng, and Huaimo,
>
>
>
> You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr.
>
>
>
> Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
> that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
> document.
>
>
>
> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
> the document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether the
> document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to
> be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
>
>
>
> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
> secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may
> be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>
>
>
> If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
> *really* need to be resolved before adopting it as a working group
> document, and what can wait until the document is a working group document
> and the working group has the revision control.
>
>
>
> Are you able to review this draft by May 20, 2020? Please respond in a
> timely fashion if you cannot make it.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tarek
>
> (as MPLS WG chair)
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>