[RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-06
Victoria Pritchard <pritchardv0@gmail.com> Thu, 17 May 2018 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <pritchardv0@gmail.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 BA126128896; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HHGClVhSq5Uy; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5C0129C5D; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y189-v6so10762931itb.2; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DIE5KIBuQ3zqhE3E2Auy08yDTDAQMeULIWkHPPtfLho=; b=l2nk1EJV0BlGG0bfbpcX6n/0mpOK0spGhHVqI85o64P7AxbSrnJpciOSL49Ky/wRun NuA8EatTCcLiXcscsQvE6uHDHIsIjYxkRydM/HDDCtBt+1FO0IJC/GVvvXEQfBV8p0KU MMsgoddHAL651/TLLZW1vVdTvWDYWQWCU5Lcq/vZpzFZYUtPZgyom5WRCm8IC+w7nJhh M3YZSPkCoK9amwCpcVj6aauJw9cSSOGJ5/tGSKab+epuzsu7EHrvNiiiPkzmV90ha+0S 4uitKaQFhrMKl7xfgKAzzd+oYzTlIgLh/pNwwM+Ulvj94nyYC1Oq0R5vEsWNoNIRChLt T1GA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DIE5KIBuQ3zqhE3E2Auy08yDTDAQMeULIWkHPPtfLho=; b=H9lO18TLZrS6jGJNkr+2QMhiCW2jWyphTh0UspJBFvHu/rvz+ikux4OYfvPFICbGFM Fv2M9EL0eaFnbw3P92s4aNO65Yw1r95g/5Quu3bei5LFopCaGSn7wQzs1Caho4XhbmsX V6D6jOFIDYD/F2ULggWlA4tjEN/P9dBg9SvNdpHnTuUnOgVU1ZC9WFDqb6nvfMoiG9Dw 6EoI1gxuXg8IaCt/wX4YFMqymjODi1zAJ27HjTrnj2nSF20za/sOmWXKXbglfOYvGEfU XOdv+HwQRAXMrVcT7F1RuQHX0y4rMnkgUEBq6ywU7CcUOfsIvtrd3ps8PYQOMVO7Qguc oD0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdNHpl8qrqiVeuYMVv/IHLPbT11S3wCq6xZgXfV2S66o1S+vbrp /9V3xatPrc3ePACB+ACBzuKZG6zju7F6BCT7JQgmHQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpwY+90/sSLwBeRwInT5UzmA3cqBzBXWUgKZd0Kb6jqw8lm+ZFuynnVwZGmGA+iu7rs0cpzn0TLUpXlTlxl3zk=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:7451:: with SMTP id o78-v6mr4473596itc.113.1526594070824; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a02:37d6:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Victoria Pritchard <pritchardv0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 22:54:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+fLEh+CMuWEcKy3J1JGx3Oxj9Fpg7qJv1a0m+-AKnMOgW2mEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext.all@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ecc38056c6de130"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/WmMfeAGp6C0j3WRf4NISO9nQOP0>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-06
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 17 May 2018 21:54:35 -0000
Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-06 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. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-06.txt Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard Review Date: 17/05/2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be considered, just a few things that weren't clear to me, but these may be obvious to the intended audience. Comments: (1) I found the document difficult to read with so many references to definitions in other drafts. I noticed that the other drafts sometimes duplicate text from each other, so wonder if that should be done here too to aid readability, along with a comment that these parts have the same definition in the IS-IS and OSPF extensions too. e.g. 2.2.1 but applies throughout. (2) I found Table 5 6 and 7 really useful, since it became clear that the TLVs defined here for BGP map to OSPF and IS-IS extensions. I'd like to see these tables earlier in the draft. (3) Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4 all mention "SR TLV" or "corresponding TLV" but it wasn't clear what these were. (4) Section 2.1.1 If length is 3 and the rightmost 20 bits are a label, what are the other bits for? (5) 2.1.2. The capabilities TLV "advertise the node's SR capabilities and its Segment Routing Global Base (SRGB) range(s)", but the format diagram only contains Segment ID information. What are the capabilities? Or does the presence of this TLV indicate the capability? (6) 2.1.2, 2.1.4 The range size is followed by a single SID? Is this the same for the Range TLV in 2.3.4? (7) 2.1.5 The SRMS Preference TLV only contains the Preference value, so it was unclear how this is linked to a mapping server? Is the mapping server some other field in the message? (8) 2.3.1 If the flags field is to be used according to the flags from the corresponding source protocol, does the receiver know the source protocol and therefore how to interpret this field? 2.3.2 says to look in NLRI for Protocol-ID so may be worth stating the same here. (9) 2.3.4.1 repeats that the flags of the "Range TLV" are set according to the definition in the OSPF drafts. Is that the Range TLV defined here (in which case this is already stated in 2.3.4), or the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV (in which case, why would you need to clarify how those flags are used)? Does this paragraph mean you copy the TLV used in OSPF and also add a Prefix-SID? So for each mapping there are 2 TLVs? 2.3.4.2 is much clearer in the way it presents this. Again a note about Protocol-ID may help here since the sub-TLVs included are different depending on the protocol. (10) Table 5,6,7. Is the fact the length is variable is interesting in this table? I would like to see this table earlier in the draft to visualise the OSPF and IS-IS information you are aiming to share using this BGP extension.
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp… Victoria Pritchard
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)