Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephane,

please see below (BOTH replies).

Cheers,
Daniele


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: venerdì 27 aprile 2018 10:02
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]> ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Sorry, there is one comment I have missed to reply:

“- Section 6: “   To accomodate the mix of signalling protocols involved during the

   stitching, the entropy label capability SHOULD be propagated between the signalling protocols.” Not clear what this means, maybe it should be propagated between the two domains, not the signaling protocols?”



The text talks about the entropy label capability, not the entropy label itself. The idea is upon stitching to enable transitivity across signaling protocols (as the ELC is carried in signaling protocols).



[>DC] yes, understood and since I believe the signaling protocols will be running in separate domains IMHO it’s more appropriate to speak about propagation between the domains and not between the signaling protocols (you don’t propagate and info between two protocols, and if you do that It’s and implementation issue).

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 15:50
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Hi Daniele,

Thanks for your review, I have addressed most of your comments as part of the -09 that I have just submitted. Let me know if it fits your comments.
The not addressed comment is :

  *   “Section 1.1 – Is this needed? The abstract says “This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to Segment Routing” and the status is informational. I’m not sure RFC2119 language is needed. E.g. in section 4 “A router capable of reading N labels but not using an EL located within those N labels MUST consider its ERLD to be 0”.  Further reading the document I see constraint against e.g. the ERLD are defined. Maybe it is more appropriate to say that the document also describes the requirements for the usage of EL in SPRING MPLS ? Moreover in section 6 it seems to describe procedures, so it’s even more than applicability and requirements.

Yes, the current intended status is Informational as per a very old discussion but I think it may re-require a discussion. As you pointed, we are now defining some requirements, we are giving some new concepts (ERLD). So I’m open to a debate on the status of the document if it should go to STD track or let it informational. I would like to hear other opinions on this.
[>DC] Agree. This probably needs to be discussed with the WG and the chairs. If you want to keep the informal status there are some things to be changed. To me it’s simpler to go for standard track and modify the scope of the document, but this is just my opinion.

Brgds,