IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 10 November 2018 23:24 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 0FE25128CFD; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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
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 27FgTGIlBNvD; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:24:34 -0800 (PST)
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 63D611276D0; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:24:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3006; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1541892274; x=1543101874; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=vLCSAbZC/NyZw9UkFjYI+7JnOYJu5ZCER8y8Qfw2VGE=; b=ced42CVT/arXgY5ODF57jHoThnVmwfUny4lPQ92z8QwEEsB96OWe7OlH Y7eeA1r4undRygogZ+t/gLW+P66cxVZAIPJWS/q2Ysw6t0jBePD8L17KH hzyBTNJMuuGuq1HBzWLYeOH+jEScVXTbq0ZW+Lj0qVPGbHWrUQBNOx0Id U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAAC9Z+db/5xdJa1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggNmgQInCoNuiBiLeoFoJYkHji6BegsBASOESQIXgw0iNA0NAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFOwYjEUUQAgEGAhQGAiYCAgIfERUQAQEEAQ0FgyEBgWkDFQ+LDJtQgS+Hdw2CGYELinUXgX+BEScME4JMglY6CwKBeIJtMYImApUbigYuCQKGNECGfIMrGIFYTIQ2ihaNJoEFiSYCERSBJh04gVVwFWUBgkEJgh4XiF6FPkExAYt2gR8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,489,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="483000412"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2018 23:24:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wAANOWGT004419 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 10 Nov 2018 23:24:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:24:32 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:24:32 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "7riw77@gmail.com" <7riw77@gmail.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20
Thread-Index: AdR5DQEetHFILxLVQJuDw/lQFwBnKQAP4Z4A
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 23:24:31 +0000
Message-ID: <49F52DB5-3522-4195-B24A-20691A6B42EE@cisco.com>
References: <051f01d4790d$1edfdbb0$5c9f9310$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <051f01d4790d$1edfdbb0$5c9f9310$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.107.25]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F2DC99BE1EF75F40B0AB42C88429E2A6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.154, xch-rtp-014.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/EF4tou7uCjiQTzdQHUMFwLS3Fbo>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20
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: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 23:24:37 -0000

Hi Russ, 

Thanks much for the fast turnaround on the review!

Les, et al,

Go ahead and publish a -21 version to address these comments. I would guess it is going to be awhile until Alvaro gets to this document as he said he was back traveling in next week - better him than me __


Thanks,
Acee



On 11/10/18, 10:50 AM, "7riw77@gmail.com" <7riw77@gmail.com> wrote:

    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-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20
    Reviewer: Russ White
    Review Date: 10 November 2018
    IETF LC End Date: 12 December 2018
    Intended Status: Standards Track
    
    Summary: 
    
    This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
    
    Overall, this document is well written, and the mechanisms described are well thought out. 
    
    Major Issues:
    
    No major issues found.
    
    Minor Issues:
    
    No minor issues found.
    
    Nits:
    
    Section 2.1
    
    Algorithms identifiers are defined in Section 3.2.
    
    "Algorithm" rather than "Algorithms."
    
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2
    
    "Length" is listed as "variable," but not further definition is provided. From the text it seems like valid values here would be 3 or 20, in octets, as this is explicit in section 2.3, but it might be good to clarify (ie, just copy the text for "Length" in section 2.3 to these sections as well).
    
    😊 /r

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email