Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 14 May 2018 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.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 50DE112D72F; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 Sf3fjF0wb0cz; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF6F5126D05; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A589C096F; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1526330012; bh=rUQtvJbqKChZ7iW2ZPFcmdGvabpzcLvYu67j+SQY1yw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=caMSU3BUYAqvDgUjaVW5MJKelHGJEvzjv96eEMXr5ZHeqvQMpFNmzU7fMy9xgJ1Y+ 94bpX7cxXk7nXBLFHpIf9zal0lhNuDtOsC4N9qlMtTDedjstYKwzUmjKw3kvse0ks1 3FhrdKA6HZ/2WofQs6o2o53OsfQJecWFyYeOyUVk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A38A19C071D; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <152632807068.10078.4478550408904407310@ietfa.amsl.com> <e53fa35538f042d98bde5e4e82f621d6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <8050bc23-d648-4ac8-ff4c-1978d6ecc9d9@joelhalpern.com> <749d7ac055aa40c0a1e149b755f16c01@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <0ba80b61-5007-e031-d019-02c4760d28e1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:33:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <749d7ac055aa40c0a1e149b755f16c01@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PGylIHIv0KnTMvd1FeqGd_orZXI>
Subject: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <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: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:33:35 -0000
I meant "this" (the document under review), not "that" (conflict-resolution). Since the other documents I found indicated that conflict resolution defined it, I assumed it did. Given that conflict-resolution is a dead document, something needs to actually define the SRMS. Yours, Joel On 5/14/18 4:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Joel - > > I don’t fully understand the rest of your comment then. You said: > > " And that document does appear to define the SRMS." > > (where "that document" refers to draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution). > > But the conflict resolution document never defined an SRMS - it merely described how SRMS advertisements were used in the context of conflict resolution. > So if you are unsatisfied with the "SRMS definition" in ldp-interop draft I think you need to be more clear as to what you think is lacking. > > I leave it to the draft authors to resolve this issue with you. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> >> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:16 PM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Joel Halpern >> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; gen-art@ietf.org >> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org; >> spring@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment- >> routing-ldp-interop-11 >> >> Thanks Les. I wondered if that were the case. >> >> Looking again at the draft, the problem then is that section 4.2 of the subject >> draft is not a normative definition of an SRMS. It states the general >> functionality, and then provides an example of how it would work in the >> given scenario. >> >> If the text were enhanced to be an effective normative definition of an >> SRMS, then that would also resolve the quesiton of the intended status of >> the draft. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 5/14/18 4:12 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >>> Joel - >>> >>> I am not an author of this draft - but I am an author on the referenced IS-IS >> draft - which I assume is one of the drafts mentioned in your comment: >>> >>>> Server). Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point >> to >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as >> the >>>> defining source for the SRMS. >>> >>> The IGP document references in the ldp-interop draft are stale. Newer >> versions of the IGP drafts have been published and they no longer reference >> draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution - a draft which is no longer active. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Les >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern >>>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:01 PM >>>> To: gen-art@ietf.org >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@ietf.org; >>>> spring@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [spring] Genart last call review of >>>> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- >>>> ldp-interop-11 >>>> >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>> >>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by >>>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like >>>> any other last call comments. >>>> >>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>> >>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11 >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>>> Review Date: 2018-05-14 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24 >>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>>> >>>> Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC. >>>> The question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed >>>> Standards track RFC is one that the ADs should examine. >>>> >>>> Major issues: >>>> This document is quite readable, and quite useful. If my reading below >>>> (minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine. >>>> However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS. Rather, >> it >>>> describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP >>>> integration and >>>> migration. As such, this seems to me to be a really good Informational >>>> Document. >>>> >>>> Minor issues: >>>> Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping >>>> Server). Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point >> to >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as >> the >>>> defining source for the SRMS. And that document does appear to >>>> define the >>>> SRMS. >>>> >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> spring mailing list >>>> spring@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
- [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sp… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Ahmed Bashandy