From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Sun Feb 4 02:22:03 2024 Return-Path: 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 D41A0C14F60D for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2024 02:22:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rVGKpEBodn2 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2024 02:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05A15C14F5E8 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2024 02:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3bd4e6a7cb0so2384921b6e.3 for ; Sun, 04 Feb 2024 02:21:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707042119; x=1707646919; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4EmL0EsyqbyOyZwMEkQ1xtqdheu/veZtb6sqL5WU+4o=; b=dLVvM3fIR4tJpslq77LGxuxp+SxDZu+cJ+KiUs0ezFg+oZqLBXbhdwDU/DcQTvXgdu YBdgRUhJ6zksLE7l/X0eBDtlGlBlFjlInUCVtJN6QJN9h8YtfEzYqfvuB/ARvyyrZXWh xtQgxmA+J9AHbZ1Mj4kCGVjSId60MsVxVYyMQQ99B7YJ9RtiHrN5e6yZGj15Cn9PK/g5 AT50RdAoxFDtuTshCbB46KZxPkI02TRQdxJuArN12InIAwWuWmOZW6L3XQqp+7EwGpDW +P9hfmggmojWNcSzr6zG6bdySkrAEZaMJ/2KPpUb4GZ1jVxnTDC0swL9oFj7glP18y34 2WCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707042119; x=1707646919; 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=4EmL0EsyqbyOyZwMEkQ1xtqdheu/veZtb6sqL5WU+4o=; b=wX2YyY7lsYGSjnOx8xjfU4zfLly0IzyRYPW2h+QCxRcqhx0EhZKHECufSROCZvJk7Q Yq50wZjK5Iy5Hf78fqW+RZorBlEgtoROWiqsPCYKI2lGdH2GgvkWCWHVTRhKYVxWpMxX ZfMkohyHgvouxHeFdt2DwyGOjJd6I5TC0QCtu6az8KCRzVCWkkFyU7RFCrnUn2VrQBHc B0i02m8Z7KAFXTXVlqcYyPu70PnJ9WG3IihLeEkVF9FstnF+qHObjbXOfTp+JZWCjOGi fw+IJFeW6dO2Kn47vmB4XgEVC+IuUbHZLzTuI/aVIU5RqPTd2mIMRPdNMq9HCnnAsC+o lyBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxyqRK1HaPBsTlb5v3tn26Tro2r5+naNg3PVXECkEl8bHz03A7Y e6vessmedyvcDuNR0lQ5CiLGB1qllbMZUGjx97Rtnwyd+rxEMJFreiOBhgiexmo4u/K+w+FkN3/ gfO87T0Emyznp8CntIbQ3K6SFZ5SgWOYbHm4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IESosJU32Y8HFpFGguKIV5CJmoX7KitArbHsfZvUBHw6IZxoFe5SPXPT6zf/lguK0IslDxI/+akb3Z0EGs/wZI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:3c89:b0:3be:4522:43c9 with SMTP id gs9-20020a0568083c8900b003be452243c9mr18485332oib.10.1707042118920; Sun, 04 Feb 2024 02:21:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <170586510260.16370.1815267482387419323@ietfa.amsl.com> <46316266-d63e-4db7-832d-53c7e84f2359@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <46316266-d63e-4db7-832d-53c7e84f2359@joelhalpern.com> From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 15:51:22 +0530 Message-ID: To: Joel Halpern Cc: SPRING WG List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001d6daf06108bb7ed" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [spring] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org 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: Sun, 04 Feb 2024 10:22:03 -0000 --0000000000001d6daf06108bb7ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joel, WG, I support this I-D and would like to see it published. I have a few suggestions that the authors and WG could consider. FWIW I did not review the pseudocode for correctness :) ## Suggestions - A general reader might be tempted to know why two flavors exist? Perhaps a few sentences in section 4 could be added. - An operator might be looking for guidance on when to use which flavor and with which C-SID lengths. Perhaps these are things better suited in proposed srv6ops, or is it possible to add some high level operational guidance here? - Section 11, is there any guidance to these future documents that is worth adding? ## Minor - Consider adding one sentence to introduce SRv6 in the abstract. - Consider adding text that the term LOC is used for SID locator in RFC 8986 alongside other terms. - Section 5, RESERVED is not a BCP14 keyword, perhaps reword to use another BCP14 keyword if you need a normative framing! - Section 7, in Locator-Block B2/m, better to explicitly say what m is. - Section 7.1, "it could be learnt via configuration or using a signaling protocol", which signaling protocol are you thinking of? - Table 1, there are some TBA in the list, which seems incorrect as they have assigned values in the registry already, please use the values instead of TBA! Also consider adding all columns as per the registry that includes Hex, change control as well. ## Nits - Expand SRv6 in Title - Expand for following abbreviation - PSP - USP - USD - I find this style "The SPRING working group has observed that..." odd and not suitable for standard track RFC. - Section 7 title "Inter Routing Domains Compression" is unclear! Perhaps "Compression in Multiple Routing Domains" or "Inter-Domain Compression"? Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:58=E2=80=AFPM Joel Halpern = wrote: > (One of the other chairs pointed out that this had not gone to the list. > So forwarding the announcement.) > > This tarts the WG last call on the above document. > > Thank you, > > Joel > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression > Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:25:02 -0800 (PST) > Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org > Resent-To: bruno.decraene@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, > jmh@joelhalpern.com, pengshuping@huawei.com > Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:25:02 -0800 > From: IETF Secretariat > > To: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression@ietf.org, > spring-chairs@ietf.org > > > The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression has been > changed > to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > > Comment: > This starts the WG last call for this document. Please comment with suppo= rt > or opposition, and explanation of your perspective. Silence is not consen= t, > and just "support" or "oppose" is not helpful. This call will run through > the end of Feb 4, 2024. Yours, Joel Halpern - responsible Spring co-chair > > PS: I would appreciate a document shepherd from the WG for the bnext step= . > Email me if you are willing. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > --0000000000001d6daf06108bb7ed Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Joel, WG,

I support this = I-D and would like to see it published. I have a few suggestions that the a= uthors and WG could consider. FWIW I did not review the pseudocode for corr= ectness :)

## Suggestions

- A= general reader might be tempted to know why two flavors exist? Perhaps a f= ew sentences in section 4 could be added.
- An operator might be looking= for guidance on when to use which flavor and with which C-SID lengths. Per= haps these are things better suited in proposed srv6ops, or is it possible = to add some high level operational guidance here?
- Section 11, is there= any guidance to these future documents that is worth adding?

## Mi= nor

- Consider adding one sentence to introduce SRv6 in the abstract= .
- Consider adding text that the term LOC is used for SID locator in R= FC 8986 alongside other terms.
- Section 5, RESERVED is not a BCP14 keyw= ord, perhaps reword to use another BCP14 keyword if you need a normative fr= aming!
- Section 7, in Locator-Block B2/m, better to explicitly say wha= t m is.
- Section 7.1, "it could be learnt via configuration or us= ing a signaling protocol", which signaling protocol are you thinking o= f?
- Table 1, there are some TBA in the list, which seems incorrect as = they have assigned values in the registry already, please use the values in= stead of TBA! Also consider adding all columns as per the registry that inc= ludes Hex, change control as well.

## Nits

- Expand SRv6 in T= itle
- Expand for following abbreviation
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - PSP
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 - USP
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - USD
- I find this style "The SP= RING working group has observed that..." odd and not suitable for stan= dard track RFC.
- Section 7 title "Inter Routing Domains Compressi= on" is unclear! Perhaps "Compression in Multiple Routing Domains&= quot; or "Inter-Domain Compression"?

Thanks!=C2=A0
Dhruv

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:58=E2=80=AFPM= Joel Halpern <= jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

(One of the other chairs pointed out that this had not gone to the list.=C2=A0 So forwarding the announcement.)

This tarts the WG last call on the above document.

Thank you,

Joel



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression
Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:25:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org
Resent-To: bruno.decraene@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jmh@= joelhalpern.com, pengshuping@huawei.com
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 11:25:02 -0800
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
To: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression@ietf.org, s= pring-chairs@ietf.org



The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression has been changed
to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel H= alpern:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spr= ing-srv6-srh-compression/

Comment:
This starts the WG last call for this document. Please comment with support
or opposition, and explanation of your perspective. Silence is not consent,
and just "support" or "oppose" is not helpful. Th= is call will run through
the end of Feb 4, 2024. Yours, Joel Halpern - responsible Spring co-chair

PS: I would appreciate a document shepherd from the WG for the bnext step. Email me if you are willing.

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--0000000000001d6daf06108bb7ed--