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

Chongfeng Xie <> Tue, 23 January 2024 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EF0C14F6F7; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:09:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.84
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aSuAEDbULPvG; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F4EC14F6EF; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:09:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s201512; t=1706044161; bh=swZgSk0PhOBKEl1jG4zRXXbr4Jti2lh3KUwBl2jxBJU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References; b=oXWHxD0KaCRDQkXdxpxg4e896Vy4sFNhVcAbATeCMRY0RX5xl+5DlY81ik+fQwpSj yCRy1tC9uihfSVm5bB2VpM5812h5IpdOj72+4aR//ntszOLN3/x7rYx6E8ICnSLvF1 jz+31DdcetWv7huyQtUAhhGt9T51m3Bcl6RsOjZE=
Received: from LAPTOP-BOBOCIFS ([]) by (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id CE37CC8; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:03:14 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1706043794tj40s1qis
Message-ID: <>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: NMGzQWUSIfvTTwiEPnc54IpXBrpfpgTPSDL2LabF5guQ6lsFQFdSUFBimAEtAM q6zexwG9gXbC/iuKrzq8U8hjwtPWzMf1kbcoUhI0M5RRYmG3ra80cBm6ztgEyh/1aPiAayGzqyg4 dxOn9GjsdPjzlB0VA+NVvNJoXGEIm6JMbw/BZ7PLbg4Ot8RHD5TQhcB1+0KF50+b8jhSFbXg1cco upWt7QeGRuV52Vifvg3J4gzV316BvdbqxBKKFxiXVWcK9UZQc0gNthRPdbZmhNdqLxlswdLpQjyf ICZv/VrSJ7XJ538cb4JdFA1afvGiUgVH7LgGa+KSW+ZSey3NmfazjB5aFf8+yEgWw3Qvkxae2zCA azV7sHa9xGJjviartYj3wNoFRjyW5mu7FYmvc50jdJnd5WphPl9V/gE8qrFfqX8DmAJkfQsOL+1O tMVw/IPb/WuYQFI5y2P2fP3FMj8o8KGehbjjVYUXeyEgKuYrDNcjCafENWq7BtRLNKHOIGPaucxq bqg/wZJKc/vxZ3hHRJ4Ep4SphGppbGUvOJSCtazJ3cdhM6vKIPCk8bppImyLgrI0aEGPDEgze71T WL6McTt+ZMeVMOjJiQN6gArqkKVIraE9gqb+GjglYp47sYyA+RuMrWzV7rge6fXTs3qCvwrrdTd4 FMxe91qdirGfRWuyMxKT6DR46MLggpFN44MI17prWcWPg1+7IaQDhFBCm5LVN3JxjCDoh+ed5Pkh MT/DLo+LLulsW5S8MbSMbEov/9J3SpAeZV1GfTj6g6EQFofAuzD18MizVx7C7/zFmqeI3Q8+SOXx FYPEBAp7BBkLdZ7vA3KPJYNSNCfWfeLCVYW/m3T08BN9WMgL7N1W7FhZh2d6n81eIX5AWzuALQYh w3DKkl1vmdvDiwnelPOyTurOEG+QP+X7jgDQeELhI5XxxMsAl8SjOjiFWX1o4SIGLZjGcuYeV8FY 5m9uEFXf28dw9dq+rRguryb+ilwuxutkrY6+y6jHRT7ArlV/2ojtA8B/UmHNVYb06aeL7tMLi0CY vlfrKq/voylOLfExKUy5g0gfyGMFSK4kh+kNxm/GoKBJ1yyAkVurbvMYukrsA4+S/B4Amo7w==
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:03:14 +0800
From: Chongfeng Xie <>
To: Acee Lindem <>, "Hejia (Jia)" <>
Cc: rtg-dir <>, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all" <>, last-call <>, lsr <>
References: <>, <>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 1E39A689-FDEB-456A-8286-4E42BFEEAFFE
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart057720682248_=----"
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 21:09:29 -0000

Hi Acee, Jia,
Yes, version -06 had the changes to align with  the TEAS terminology.

Best regards
From: Acee Lindem
Date: 2024-01-24 03:16
To: Hejia (Jia)
CC: Chongfeng Xie; Routing Directorate; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all; last-call; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
Hi Chongfeng, Jia, 
I believe that version -06 had the changes to align with the TEAS terminology - correct? This review is closed. 
> On Dec 14, 2023, at 2:29 AM, Hejia (Jia) <> wrote:
> Hi Chongfeng,
>  Thanks for your reply. Your reply looks reasonable.
>   B.R.
> Jia
>   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
> To:
> 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
>  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
>  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
>  Summary:
> 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.
>   Nits:
> 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,
> Chongfeng
>    _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
Lsr mailing list