Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions / draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions / draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions)

[Ahmed Bashandy <[e-mail]>]

Version 21 of the draft has just been uploaded, I removed the sentence 
“IGPs with SR extensions...are examples of MCCs.”.

as you suggested since I overlooked removing it in version 20 which was 
uploaded few hours ago

Thanks

Ahmed
On 4/10/19 3:05 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On April 10, 2019 at 5:46:56 PM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - 
> FR/Paris-Saclay) ([e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
>
> Martin:
>
> Hi!
>>
>> It looks to me that you don’t disagree with what is written in the 
>> draft but rather with the fact that the draft may suggest that IGPs 
>> should do things which are in fact not specified in the IGPs drafts. 
>> I think this point covers 1.1 to 1.4
>>
>> Assuming that I’m correct, I believe that in order to clear the 
>> misunderstanding authors could simply remove the sentence: “IGPs with 
>> SR extensions...are examples of MCCs.”.
>>
> …and probably clean up some other text, for example, §2.10.1 
> references I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions specifically.
>
> Bottom line, I think you’re right.
>
>> On 1.5. I don’t think there is a conflict. It does not contradict 
>> 8402. It is not saying “An IGP Node-SID SHOULD NOT be associated with 
>> a prefix …”
>>
>> The way I see it is that this is a belt and suspenders approach. The 
>> base req says MUST NOT and this req says “check if this req is 
>> respected”.
>>
> I read this document as saying “check, but you may have reasons not 
> to”…  IMHO, there’s no reason to specify the behavior here again, if 
> it’s already specified in rfc8402.
>
>> Of course this is only my view. I expect authors to have their own.
>>
> I’m sure they will. ;-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>