Re: [RTG-DIR] [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

"Hejia (Jia)" <> Thu, 14 December 2023 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55978C14CE2C; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 23:30:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5yXFwM1rLOJt; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 23:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1133C14CF0D; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 23:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4SrP9R1qKJz6857p; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:28:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E051140D27; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:30:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:29:59 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:29:57 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:29:57 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <>
To: Chongfeng Xie <>, "" <>
CC: "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all" <>, last-call <>, lsr <>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
Thread-Index: AdouXz7pn62Aqg9MTNKPIyLpgaOOJQ==
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:29:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c3577f8a7a5e43d8ac33de94c99e0d97huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:30:08 -0000

Hi Chongfeng,

Thanks for your reply. Your reply looks reasonable.


发件人: Chongfeng Xie []
发送时间: 2023年12月12日 13:14
收件人: Hejia (Jia) <<>>;<>
抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all <<>>; last-call <<>>; lsr <<>>
主题: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

Hi Jia,

Thanks for the review comments.

I see your major comment is about the terminology alignment, as replied to Daniele, we will follow the decision in TEAS to update the terminologies in next revision.

Please see some replies to the minor issues inline:

From: He Jia via Datatracker<>
Date: 2023-12-11 16:09
CC: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all<>; last-call<>; lsr<>
Subject: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
Reviewer: He Jia
Review result: Not Ready


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: December 10, 2023
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Informational

I have read the review comments from Daniele about the concept of enhanced VPN,
and the relationship with other existing terms. I agree with his suggestion to
follow the discussion and align the draft with the output. In addition, some
minor issues and also nits are found out as follows and should be considered
prior to publication.

Minor Issues:
1、In Section 1, it is said "Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be used to represent
both the topological instructions and the set of network resources allocated by
network nodes to a VTN." Is it "allocated by network nodes" or "allocated to
network nodes"? If it is "network resources allocated by network nodes", why
not "allocated by centralized controllers" as well? If it is "network resources
allocated to network nodes" which are assocated with a VTN, why not " allocated
to network links" as well? Is there any special consideration by saying
"network nodes" only here?

[Chongfeng]: The description is a little bit confusing, actually it should be "network resources of the network nodes and links which are allocated to a VTN/NRP". We will update it in next revision.

2、In Section 4, "For SRv6 data plane, the SRv6 SIDs associated with the same
VTN can be used together to build SRv6 paths with the topological and resource
constraints of the VTN taken into consideration." Is "SRv6 Locator" missing?

[Chongfeng] SRv6 Locator is the covering prefix part of the SRv6 SIDs. In SRv6 segment list, the SRv6 SIDs are used to indicate the forwarding path and the set of resources used for packet processing. So the description is correct.

1、Section 2, TLV 223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) is defined in RFC 5311, which
is not referenced in the draft. 2、Section 1,  Paragraph 3, last sentence,
s/...need to be distributed using control plane/...need to be distributed using
a control plane 3、Section 2, Paragraph 1, last sentecne, s/MT-ID could be used
as the identifier of VTN in control plane./MT-ID could be used as the
identifier of VTN in the control plane. 4、Section 2, "IS-IS Multi-Topology
[RFC5120]" and "IS-IS Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) [RFC5120]" are both used in
the draft. It is suggested to keep consistent throughout the draft.

[Chongfeng] Thanks for catching the nits, we will resolve them in next revision.

Best regards,

Lsr mailing list<>