Re: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: (with COMMENT)

Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gdawra.ietf@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 B92AD12DA6A; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 05:01:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 yvx6OcnnJ6-d; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 05:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 C5689129C6E; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 05:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p1so560392pfh.4; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:01:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ROnzeM7KzVpdQq481DGIIWkr8GPFLjFH6LNPczXL2LM=; b=qf3Inh9Sw3koDBcfSitMMxCNg5BfqNUWvNr87kMZJF/5dUjysbzGGV5Tlj1Vcq/1XI uaSuy9S9ozTupvyPio4CpSouhiPiwTAx+OZZ3mUFhrWBSMDe5Km3jwIb4XBU2rSPUsjk m4HnqRXsAduxDTIIB6sZyJ3hmbGGtcmpnUq7dt3DUUHjDJ/gZDJ/diJgMkkowAo2hXkZ IAccuYqWF+L8+LkDRjwHZM0jnqwRQwAXTWUObmWFio4d55OKN8DgVQI73ZwcXP1t1X2B edaDhWGT1864CElxmaKCi0bASAhMIkp9pDPBMEqN+Bs03X681Xq/iRYaF4HUWM8iO32N LpAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ROnzeM7KzVpdQq481DGIIWkr8GPFLjFH6LNPczXL2LM=; b=RYZ0G5l3K3thzujgSi3R5QJZHs3o5qzNOCs5B/XwgPdnZ0Rahg87SAMlpzevFiHgf3 f/GgLNsiS0cF4bfYqsQJFLVUDVUghGlIDf0BnSTcR5IKP/4yldbiMFAd6qxfo3qP7gvD oNxEX6NmimvqoBidWoQZrCKOR0x6tPRh34hihfQw/w2Nc+BARQXANWLiEGzOa4JYsCY0 x/U0NlDGyMOS/7Bh9XXKbL7BNj4g51QG6tSE3dtAHITQPNFU8awAmZAvPpV65GY6ihQN A6NOtzz/VqCs99/oyyl3dJJyJWGMUFwlO3g2qZL9vuZNmth3zIBx4bdWTUZFRhqxIub6 siDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBn4pwFeDHRcDo2VDQATtLQU4Q153fcljoRdS/Z5Qtsg/iV9oGF twbSw72RqUuchwssW6AGBPc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224EMMxw/X9ewX8sQcm94NsuMOaWoB6CkVPgZJ8aKblu4rfUJwNxF8eX7Y2u9kT2qmAwWDPQUg==
X-Received: by 10.101.89.3 with SMTP id f3mr1915724pgu.372.1517922082216; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:8b03:d12c:bc4b:2b3d:aeae:c471? ([2601:646:8b03:d12c:bc4b:2b3d:aeae:c471]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 19sm26143347pfk.168.2018.02.06.05.01.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <151564328492.18377.10335503943075639602.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:01:19 -0800
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, spring@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E73DE59B-40BA-45C3-9E69-27C32D243E31@gmail.com>
References: <151564328492.18377.10335503943075639602.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/DL-hhr3Nsv45X-VFb3BBBNPHYX8>
Subject: Re: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Feb 2018 13:01:27 -0000

Adam,

Thanks for the comments. Inline…[Gaurav]

> On Jan 10, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I spent a long time trying to understand the following text from section 2,
> where the sub-bullet appears to flatly contradict its parent bullet:
> 
>   o  Each node is its own AS (Node X has AS X). 4-byte AS numbers are
>      recommended ([RFC6793]).
> 
>      *  For simple and efficient route propagation filtering, Node5,
>         Node6, Node7 and Node8 use the same AS, Node3 and Node4 use the
>         same AS, Node9 and Node10 use the same AS.
> 
> After a great deal of study of these and the following bullets, I convinced
> myself (perhaps incorrectly?) that the intention here is to say "We're going to
> talk about these nodes as if they each have their own AS, although in real
> deployments they'll probably be grouped together." Is that the intention? If
> so, it would be much easier to read if the sub-bullet made this clearer.
> 
[Gaurav] Yes, thats the intension. In reality they can be grouped together in such as way that Tier-1 for instance in the Center for Node 5, 6, 7,8 have same ASN.

Cheers,

Gaurav
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring