[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 21C513A0FA6; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 McgVUi0I6NyR; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD933A0FA3; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3FD819EA79965F75B384; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:38:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:38:46 +0100
Received: from DGGEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.249]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:38:42 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd.all@ietf.org>, 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt
Thread-Index: AdYUgufIha3uMI7HSMyOkGGdwgKyaQ==
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:38:41 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297AAB4AB@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.48]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/AiNGh4SauvLtirTN3GtaqfzJ7GY>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt
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, 17 Apr 2020 07:38:54 -0000

Hello,

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 ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16.txt
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: April 17, 2020 
IETF LC End Date: 
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
The Node MSD TLV and Link MSD TLV are designed to be able to carry multiple MSDs. I guess this is designed for future extensibility, where a Node may have multiple types of MSD, right? But for each type, is it allowed to carry multiple instances of MSD-Type/MSD-Value pair or only one instance? For whichever case, there need some text to describe the rule about the sending and receiving procedures. For example, when multiple instances allowed, how does a node decide which instance takes effect; if only one instance allowed and multiple instances received, how to handle this, discard the whole TLV, or only the first instance takes effect and the rest ignored.  

Nits:
1. 
Section 1,
s/learn/learns

2.
Section 3 and Section 4:
The TLV format of Node/Link MSD is defined as follows:
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Type             |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    MSD-Type   |  MSD-Value    |  MSD-Type...  |  MSD-Value... |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Since the MSD-Type/MSD-Value pairs are variable in length, the above definition does not reflect this, suggest to change the figure as below:
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Type             |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     //    MSD-Type   |  MSD-Value    |  MSD-Type...  |  MSD-Value... //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Best regards,
Mach