Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Tue, 28 February 2017 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FDB12969B for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.369
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.229, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 PjLIZ2CVk6UV for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (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 BB58C1294FD for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n186so33698372qkb.3 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=0jIxSQYMC8xXQOv2arW35UFWGmmGBBfK28fZMFWfl9U=; b=bNWsY+UIoWYpIF7EA3HVcG1SP0BPzZnvMV1cpAP90DdmQjEKNzKTdvbCPgDA+c55o3 9UcgXJ2WzEAm1K1lOQU5F0YN69iYLz3QlVPyOylay/NAB95OhL3B4Zp3uMAdFnIDCxZ/ PW2b9ImgBi7m6qWbWodlyhXlRqXNoSy9jZFhAS4SXV8bridL7ugT80toqKCdDkbnDpg8 ZbFUnLKxk2afBoep8IrOHc92Ex7nRTDxxmBSvuyn4ox3xujCUGBCKuvzA/UIwfRLWPGD EDQo0hVEiIkOMoBVNybIUR+5rj3M4791mI55I8c8fLpcKahuiTw9d2n+bZn0Kvh2yWZy 9m/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0jIxSQYMC8xXQOv2arW35UFWGmmGBBfK28fZMFWfl9U=; b=pMuFjiahPvBoCWhoitF9jfSgoVKs/Hy2W5Kr57t7jAA6E8TiOVno7YunzfeSnzJxJs j4fMkDiU9Z8FrpQ7oxfaYfe/iT5BlJfEuOzx4nPWnV/NwgzOrEbtvHFLHilXJROKMle0 cXKWIPq4zWecOGo3I8TqeMTkOml0IlMa+COaSEQpGyWt1FeK/Sr/6OtDfKSe6A9bLkV6 zZQ0e0WlS2QrZIRnyvhDPONl9apHR4An34FnD6uHHiFNyYlZ2zQpL0z5fyt5mGiQ6vf4 3MjmgYrh/FmBNoMG6Wug6xZAuWDZ08NSmGj6JEtiqXkD/aLeZNDjGOc0PtJ1NB/3+U3/ 1cMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lNS0J4t6+GroCzgKytrdMBcdgbxevBxt7fwhCaHTGPFjcujvbnkJn1fngqLB6YMpTeN5iRBrU7/LAXKA==
X-Received: by 10.200.39.97 with SMTP id h30mr4796360qth.18.1488310181776; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.200.4.2 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A19DD756-D858-4F86-BF76-F6AC94C0D211@cisco.com>
References: <27991_1487670653_58AC0D7D_27991_2292_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A1ED7122E@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <18673_1487691447_58AC5EB7_18673_4491_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A1ED71F65@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <A19DD756-D858-4F86-BF76-F6AC94C0D211@cisco.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:29:41 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4_fGn9vC5Hzxxor6xjqZmwBYDLk
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzwFRuFyaB+UVZXRCP5Db2H8Fr7vftjwz_yn2b=yZqiF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11404268b355d205499c37ca"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/0ojvMuusJrOe0A5gLE__yx5WBDE>
Cc: "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:29:44 -0000

I support publication of the document as an informational RFC.

Below are my comments.

Thanks,
Anoop

==

- pg 5, line 1
  What is the criteria that allow sharing the AS number?  Is there a
reference?

- pg 6
  "This means that every new connection will be established
   obliviously (memory- less) with regards to the paths chosen
    before, or chosen by other nodes."
  I am not sure what "chosen by other nodes" adds.  I think it
  can be removed.

- pg 7
  "local label 1600x" -> "local label (16000 + x).
  Also because of the way loopbacks are assigned, does this mean that the
number nodes that this scheme can handle is 512?  May be good to mention
why this is considered a good number.

- pg 11
  "BGP Prefix Segment 16011 then directs the packet down to Node11 along
the path (Node5, Node9, Node11)."
  I think it would be worth mentioning that node 9 need not appear in this
path.  In general, because of the nature of clos topologies, there is no
need to have intermediate nodes between the spine and the ToR on the way
down.  (If there is, it would be good to know why.)

Editorial

- some inconsistencies throughout.  would be good to make them consistent.
  Node1 and Node2 vs Nodes 1 and 2 vs "Node1" and "Node2"
  data center, data-center, DC

- Spell out SRGB and AIGP at first use.

- pg 1
  "use-case use-cases" -> use-cases

- pg 5
  "via BGP session" -> "via a BGP session."  (missing 'a' and period.)
  "address of it's loopback" -> "address of its loopback"
  "per-flow ECMP that does not" -> "per-flow ECMP does not"
  "placed on one path over others" ->  "placed on one path over others."
 (missing period)
  " implements oblivious" -> "implements an oblivious"

- pg 6
  "Absence of path visibility" -> "The absence of path visibility"

- pg 7
  "Figure 2 zooms on" -> "Figure 2 zooms in on"

- pg 8
  "an nondeterministic label" -> "a non-deterministic label"

- pg 9
  "Referring to Figure 1Referring to Figure 1" -> "Referring to Figure 1"

- pg 11
  "if Node7 does not support" -> "even though Node7 does not support"

- p12
  Missing a period at the end of the first and second items in Sec 4.3.
  "Attribute adverting" -> "Attribute advertising"

- pg 14
  "let us illustrate this assuming" -> "let us illustrate this concept
assuming"
  "flow to Z" -> "flow to HostZ"
  "assuming A is made aware" -> "assuming HostA is made aware"

- pg 15
  "the latter one" -> "the last one"

- pg 16
  "monitoring network elements health" -> "monitoring network elements'
health"
  "inSection 7.2" -> "in Section 7.2"
  "BGP Labelled Unicast" -> "BGP Labeled Unicast"  (also on pg 17)

- pg 18
  "thanks to PHP" -> "because of PHP"
  "Internet- scale" -> "Internet-scale"  (extra space)
  "go-to-the- Internet" -> "go-to-the-Internet"
  " do not recommend to use" -> "do not recommend using"
  "operation viewpoint" -> "operational viewpoint"

- pg 19
  "allows to construct" -> "allows us to construct"
  "Spine5 and Spine 8" -> Node5 and Node8
  "(e.g. ToR1's SRGB is [1000, 1999], ToR2's SRGB is [2000, 2999]...)." ->
  "(e.g. ToR1's SRGB is [1000, 1999], ToR2's SRGB is [2000, 2999], ...)." ->