Re: [spring] AD Review for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-13

Rishabh Parekh <> Fri, 02 June 2023 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9D4C151525; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ig4dGxdeP7hF; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 055ADC15152C; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-97668583210so71699066b.1; Fri, 02 Jun 2023 14:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1685742080; x=1688334080; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mz12I3mZvgr6iVzNGbNgiU1Vf2G+jfPmCEqtswX19C4=; b=S4LBCHUHikg28Ams+VJfmZFVuKfFEdfprfGz5H/bBIofSww1EFRJZg0xNbZlWhuX0K XVZV/eP6CHmcA3+nbjBQjwFykoJf5yKM3defbtx6faWFNnj31969Tuwl8ORWaGkeaBfj 3fqBddNlCpmKWXU0WfqOm9+Uqx+PVr9/XG+G25DNYh5K4cornQRNOl3Cakh4p9t7Mga4 vF4oldnifJF25HN7lWAuhOiVoCb8dvQqeoNRNfWhRX4BlQ7NQUO/lT1qODeySDAwYnjA tq75uVGPiiASXFATnZyznw/76M5GZ4RkxZOnC3iQNnTCTzhbyxw+VcWt9G2i5E800+04 PfHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1685742080; x=1688334080; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mz12I3mZvgr6iVzNGbNgiU1Vf2G+jfPmCEqtswX19C4=; b=WF1d+rdWObbUFxTxZKZGRtf9q6b7NFLK+KCqFx6/0JTgk9ZD/kCqstZnQ+X7xyFrNB iJCVnP392iO0FLz3PT6S4y4HpdC7C6P+CItOpm8G/AuxAFnLhkE3ftT0rlWKf31L7/2I gxBi94vTFzT/eJgW7A9O6Fo0xlTmVawkSittKJeQLmf54w+UmALhepojj4ICWyK90E2y MENu/0JYJrM3HMOuYEGAPKbokSOSSOIMh2map2it0zB1ZRWJIyBvLxvKgGhAB0O2XqVX CEUcvdPRFBit4pnqgHyhIeRUinx43n+NUn87RrtZ749EvrDi7GXAoLSTr8ImUWFw/0ae lGuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxFQD9nlBBhzKpjQpV1Lo+Xcen1/mmO01jzRlGV8YByp5b5Vlrt FEAxlnf3gHcF6M49GhagVcjzSyCMIZzKGrECrsM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4urb8dPnNnHnScx9Oi90FU5jNbibtUQw9AfDldWA2Np8if1j0AIqrQ+WxjXesus5UANPQNKRzbXw7xRnHfdGw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7f21:b0:966:b4b:eb0 with SMTP id qf33-20020a1709077f2100b009660b4b0eb0mr12963962ejc.30.1685742079727; Fri, 02 Jun 2023 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rishabh Parekh <>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 14:41:07 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: James Guichard <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, SPRING WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8604d05fd2c69c1"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] AD Review for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 21:41:22 -0000

Thanks for the comments. I will address the editorial comments below.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 6:54 AM James Guichard <> wrote:

> Jim> Replication-ID is now defined twice; in the terminology section and
> in this section. If you want to keep the definition in both places then
> please make the text consistent
> as currently it is not.

[RP] I will remove it from the Terminology section.

Jim> Further I notice that the document uses both ‘Replication segment’ and
> ‘Replication Segment’. Please choose one and update the document use of the
> chosen term for consistency.

[RP] I will fix this. I also noticed similar issue with "Replication
state", "Replication node" and "Downstream nodes". I will fix these too.

> 144           Replication-ID is a variable length field.  In simplest
> case, it can
> 145           be a 32-bit number, but it can be extended or modified as
> required
> 146           based on specific use of a Replication segment.  When the
> PCE signals
> Jim> You do not specify how it can be extended or modified, neither do you
> specify any specific use cases. If this is out of scope for the document
> then please say so.

[RP] I will add out of scope text.

> 165           Replication SID identifies the Replication segment in the
> forwarding
> 166           plane.  At a Replication node, the Replication SID operates
> on local
> 167           state of Replication segment and the resulting behavior MAY
> be
> 168           similar to a Binding SID [RFC9256] of a Segment Routing
> Policy.
> Jim> the above paragraph mention of Binding SID still bothers me. The text
> says that it MAY behave like a Binding SID but does not specify any
> guidelines as to when it might or
> how it might. Is it necessary to even mention Binding SID here? if it is
> then you need to expand on the text to give the reader some guidance.

[RP] On further reading, I agree with you that Binding SID is not strictly
required here. It is more applicable to SR P2MP policy PIM WG draft. I will
remove it from the text.

I will publish next revision addressing your comments.