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

Chongfeng Xie <> Tue, 12 December 2023 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0212C403998; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:20:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.832
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.832 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, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 x9zQIT6coRPx; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:20:15 -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 798FEC403996; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:20:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s201512; t=1702358408; bh=emIMyPzyvF0kcJeKG/jmJqSTFrBRZB8Izspvd5YYOPQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References; b=uyEMT3XgUFbmHNVKiOam4ln/0b0y+b+IR0x8UjVKCC9AE2wJtRsEoxA8p40CHcQYq OvbShurq/23sTQcNrdfx0ub9A/fw+BppS4xMGRj7n8qHzcpzo095efHjLwKgNFix4b pPXquAESGojZetcqtQHYzkJyMyIHqvKeZiWYuaDk=
Received: from DESKTOP-48H476U ([]) by (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id 3811261B; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:14:01 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1702358041tibfwls0g
Message-ID: <>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: MQ+wLuVvI2LQBC29XcsIG5wgEWen2xrZNDyDKrJVbOy8TE6AZLNODgm7wB6ob4 zOZ8deUfGYm7vAkOPbNtw6rpiE1yL89e4bvHNZ8GP9LUGc8hrM8KIPdiTiD7Pz8H+N+HF4Cox1EB OnJHns1JD6rYwGG/6tB93MHrBWVXgXySS7/1griGYAlX79SXoMYmiA4LobpPsPUhWX0gDLZiPPbj RZqssxxZKnhevX3zXKyaO7ZjTuHONAToNc6oslLLEiKUDnnkm1RyiP9qkzWgnTFIAy8IEu4qNHMt JJYl1QOnH8Rn+KuDm2AuSQW7PweDRzJ0Qt0tXj6L8RNhQ1yuVwmob9OZIZY2L7zKlD8iolDY5dHl V1r0jBkn+EATIOXSJhQs2WEcxJdltgDvimsbQucF3frABDatZChw7f3/xEHizIgf3bb6TIMih7DG oT05ICD8xC79tzwIZqqg5Ya920o+bVX5RTa71looofCXgUuV5ChYhKnOdVL9glh+eiJrS8G4OMG0 n8RPwja8iLCNVSmwjxdNZTEBznQpdXHZAA8+z/eLyQhVHkY0o3G/6uaW/UF+I5EhUqAxpmhAvrnM p96GuMVBubArRgTw3UgX4dxtR2y4cLnDCof9oua1lyY6zR5fK2CYGCETL/l/s94RAmF+XFGndKYT McjCUhaUJ068epq8RiJqFIeXqYCI6IsFtUi+m7otRmLaaS+EeUqddXN+xYyC6I8dptkBDzIZ2ABt GiI5K+cLYXuOJkUOFMqTmkBEx+0pVWZ9Wx9CEIee4Hh0q2zfhDlGFRpGPSvVDo162ADcCpFQLLJe XQNGhzLkDJHNpV7BrPSGOQTiBvQuhyzX79hAYxGUM75DDi1oQAlCrh2MUbk13vVHgmB65VgmyWbh c18N551FkgCCDRDSrIjlv8rz014kj+9Dly0ky9UTHEZnAhEw+zePAo+b7goyBxGj513aBBNvjs1X g0FJHTlTOcasBZWqDoL2n4xR+GNqf9EnmPh/NY0MDytsF0zExRZBXjgjCfKNyyVJ5h4ja081Y=
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:14:03 +0800
From: Chongfeng Xie <>
To: He Jia <>, "" <>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all" <>, last-call <>, lsr <>
References: <>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 5258BB12-25C1-4ECA-BDCF-7910B26CBAF1
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart028510585541_=----"
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, 12 Dec 2023 05:20:20 -0000

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
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
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
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.

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,

Lsr mailing list