Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F094120858; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=IvJ/128J; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=oGSNikIo
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 D_QPVNkBtWik; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9D612083C; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7666; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568403979; x=1569613579; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GZdV5o3ON9xrEqJ09dPBfeZ0/F3BsLaWa8UG3vIpJh8=; b=IvJ/128JmFddiPc7sUOx5nZs4Q40+QjyEUT7/mJQPJdsSL20xlOGr7oj Nv6VGoem3ZSt+/ZP3ybpAfpyQiUKtBYqmlErrOsGZB0nN0OxwXtbY4ZtZ wyyAszzOisyrvi5TJ5dfKmcmlu/mo4VsQUE5gkFc7qtJ0q/3r8GvtkN4T 8=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AtHrGPh0mlbTTewgzsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44?= =?us-ascii?q?YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxGCt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8TgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVceOBEDTJ//xZCt8F8NHBxdo?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAADl8Htd/4cNJK1mGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBVQMBAQEBCwGBRCQsA21WIAQLKoQhg0cDim6CXJdwgS6BJAN?= =?us-ascii?q?UCQEBAQwBASMKAgEBhD8CF4JJIzYHDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBgRthS4MhUsCAQM?= =?us-ascii?q?SEREMAQEyBQEPAgEIEgIDAwImAgICMBUCBggCBAENBSKDAAGBagMdAQIMn2Y?= =?us-ascii?q?CgTiIYXOBMoJ9AQEFgUZBgwoYghYJgQwoAYR/hngYgX+BEAEnH4JMPoJWCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEBgSmDPzKCJoxcAYJjnQsKgiGGHWSJeoFFgjcbgjRwhlCPFo1/iASMLIQ?= =?us-ascii?q?+AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFZBC2BWHAVGksBgkEJgjmDcoUUhT9zAYEojn8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,501,1559520000"; d="scan'208";a="633610041"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Sep 2019 19:46:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8DJkIF3002270 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:46:18 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:46:17 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:46:17 -0500
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:46:17 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=RvJfYj2sDC+AlJbf0XkmpCp3ulju5q8gemZkPJGodE4jdsU2SQjscH4FAXrYJPbJnnXu12uQYIN+94UbhaLzYna+qMofYjI7MYYLE0ffeOq8v/8Mj1BiC07hEw2BweZ9vcQg1GdhNsYvgGiHCgoNNxbzz0kx25WPN11RWOJsxhgrRJqpnb1sLZ6PxrK/K4wre+G3nI1a6gwchZID7s0HtlvgNXpUIubfxwFMJNpeVvybVdJN9HyRyZXgQ7LOUK9zteH115pAlIh2scwXO3sY/MsSLF84q9QspmpfLcvkkuWw1DCz5PTx4qlcDLbJyoyahOm/cy2IechPjbmrFvQivQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=GZdV5o3ON9xrEqJ09dPBfeZ0/F3BsLaWa8UG3vIpJh8=; b=aX6e8kRpV5+7vB0Y1yVztkOB/uh6XDSc8cXApXgPLYvc4KZADtrKFuBNiS/zCAp/PeVeygZzt6izYurIHHjmkR67dMhj7hA926Ff39Kt1ygLHo5qBKEJkfbeqYBnWy4TV/pO9z1AZoJmyqtUNdActeDfsvGkM3zA0IEauGMl/mqUxQLuKv2LvIF1d30Jk1e6MPaZ0Fjeeq6A2YgDjrXV4GzGf9EyyQAlMlEWFBQhXuiIbST+7X0RYIPxWAsNrhzUiIG+awDI5QLJpibcL8wTKj0pu9eyDIrLpmZSgtTJKPG4H5iiBLqMzT3OqKIk6eUFGAgAm7OR8P+4lNlgOcQoGQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=GZdV5o3ON9xrEqJ09dPBfeZ0/F3BsLaWa8UG3vIpJh8=; b=oGSNikIoJ9BDWlvu8JDsT1t+WbIHS7IDnGhNqFU2ItYPwOqpWRCDsAEPFommH78u0M8aAHMQAiLe4PFmMMx0dcQAvGpB4QGODIToE/frXIX+P3Hjzjh6GaQ8gCB8QQlbLiyyl8OifSXLFv3mU96HNRR7Kgi2Is4u3uVBVejGFBE=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.14) by MN2PR11MB4013.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.181.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2263.21; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:46:15 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cdc1:a2cf:eb3:a420]) by MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cdc1:a2cf:eb3:a420%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2263.021; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:46:15 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
Thread-Index: AQHVaVG/0imO2kt7WkWRzaZeVpm0CacpwhsA
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:46:15 +0000
Message-ID: <181EFEE0-EB54-4BF1-ABD8-B9270E585F93@cisco.com>
References: <156828278097.16614.688259101169694148@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156828278097.16614.688259101169694148@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1008::18f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4b67e057-e354-4b2d-353b-08d738830a2c
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4013;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4013:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB401300C5077F8467F700BF19C2B30@MN2PR11MB4013.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0159AC2B97
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(376002)(136003)(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(33656002)(6506007)(76176011)(102836004)(99286004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(66556008)(66574012)(5660300002)(6246003)(64756008)(66476007)(66946007)(2906002)(478600001)(229853002)(6486002)(14454004)(86362001)(6116002)(6436002)(486006)(6512007)(6306002)(53936002)(7736002)(25786009)(305945005)(4326008)(66446008)(256004)(14444005)(36756003)(8936002)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(76116006)(446003)(11346002)(316002)(54906003)(110136005)(186003)(46003)(2501003)(476003)(2616005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4013; H:MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: aQrGoEKOUcP5JS3e0c4OtpJLxmunZnJ0yE00GUwwYTmMIzuun7Co/vE2awnijs0X1JV5LVsy4oi0CCzajIUHIGozNqrcSPyfVAIW1RlmYplO0wf+ndZ2qCwkV4TUwL2CqGaxwLjvVx9td0Gx6QEds6BbEOOciD9cm00AoExZs4w5p3EKaMr6Ylgx14dHlkkSGgAa6m7AGeZgWOBMVm6iTVM+3sKLx6vZhcwjOy5rbIwWGVVF1Bi6Ehp2OPQvSXYeaCxRYBBlcMY3twhro8KYYQPRVYAdYCcm6TQFJ/D2AABGNqogN+lHL+TlvIeUG2+ou+A9I97vlYVGJ/SzYwk9IeYLmPg9aYwDXY4r+NoIbrwvLJIKb7zuC4ch5hMRrocjnNoLddQVa9ButyBVz18Frg2n0bm+RTF7vSEe7hxW3hw=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <DA9B7E9FC10F2749A03FF2F0CC816D5F@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4b67e057-e354-4b2d-353b-08d738830a2c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Sep 2019 19:46:15.8345 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Jjdp9ikSHt8mi3x+Tww2NaRVQIPMNdbo7fDP28qlSHfD3FFT78Joqewm8cqaK3ct
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4013
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.15, xch-rcd-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/40Z3T-hCAtGfb3oM4S03HvxPios>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:46:28 -0000

Thanks Dhruv for the review... 

Peter and other authors, 
Please include Dhruv's comments or respond as to why they are being omitted. 

Thanks,
Acee


On 9/12/19, 6:06 AM, "Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

    Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
    Review result: Has Issues
    
    Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
    
    Hello
    
    I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
    ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/
    
    The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
    an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
    IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
    as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
    stage that the document has reached.
    
    As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
    determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my
    comments along with the other working group last call comments.
    
    For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
    ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
    
    Document: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
    Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
    Review Date: 12-09-2019
    Intended Status: Standards Track
    
    Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
    resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.
    
    The draft is focused and straightforward, the reader needs to be aware of
    RFC6790 and draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label beforehand. I have reviewed
    this and the OSPF I-D together and you will find similar comments for both I-Ds.
    
    Minor
    *****
    (1) Could you mark that the codepoints mentioned in the draft are early
    allocated by IANA? Currently it says the value are desired. I also suggest
    following change in Section 7 (IANA Considerations) -
    
    OLD:
       IANA is requested to allocate the E-bit (bit position 3 is desired)
       from the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry.
    
       IANA is requested to allocate a MSD type (the type code of 2 is
       desired) from the "IGP MSD Types" registry for ERLD.
    NEW:
       IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the E-bit (Bit
       position 3) in the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV"
       registry.
    
       IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the ERLD (type
       code of 2) in the "IGP MSD Types" registry.
    END
    
    (2) Section 3 talks about ERLD in Node MSD sub-TLV. But what happens if one
    receives ERLD in the Link MSD sub-TLV? As per my understanding this is not
    allowed, better to add normative text for the case then.
    
    Also we have this text in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label -
    
       In a distributed switching architecture, each linecard may have a
       different capability in terms of ERLD.  For simplicity, an
       implementation MAY use the minimum ERLD of all linecards as the ERLD
       value for the system.
    
       There may also be a case where a router has a fast switching path
       (handled by an ASIC or network processor) and a slow switching path
       (handled by a CPU) with a different ERLD for each switching path.
       Again, for simplicity's sake, an implementation MAY use the minimum
       ERLD as the ERLD value for the system.
    
       The drawback of using a single ERLD for a system lower than the
       capability of one or more specific component is that it may increase
       the number of ELI/ELs inserted.  This leads to an increase of the
       label stack size and may have an impact on the capability of the
       ingress node to push this label stack.
    
    If we are deviating from this and opting for the node (marked 'MAY' above) as
    the only possibility, we need to handle this properly. Maybe check with
    chairs/AD on this!
    
    (3) Section 4, can we add some more description on what the 'E' flags means, in
    the similar style of other flags
    [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1]
    
    (4) Section 8, suggest to also add one sentence for the impact of advertising
    incorrect ERLD. If there isn't any, that can also be stated.
    
    Nits
    ****
    (1) Suggested ordering of sections - ..ELC/ERLD/BGP-LS/ACK..  [matching between
    OSPF/ISIS] (2) Section 2, add [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] for
    terminology reference (3) Section 3, Add reference to
    draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label for the definition and usage of ERLD (4)
    Section 6,
    
       The ERLD MSD-type introduced for IS-IS in Section 3 is advertised
       using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute as
       defined in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
    
    I think you mean draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd here!
    
    Also, maybe change the title "BGP-LS Extension" as there is no 'extension'
    required, ELC/ERLD is BGP-LS would be automatically supported.
    
    (5) Expand MSD on first use.
    (6) The first figure is titled Figure 2!
    (7) Section 4, mark the figure as "Prefix Attribute Flags"
    (8) All references are marked Normative, please re-check if this is intentional.
    
    Thanks!
    Dhruv