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

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>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com" <
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, "huaimo.chen@futurewei.com" <
> huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
> *Cc: *"mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "
> 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
>