Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

["Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>]

Bruno,

As I announced in my email, the revision -11 aims at addressing the comments related to section 4.16.1 as per your email below.
Today I have posted another revision (-12) that addresses Brian’s editorial comments on that same section. There are no other changes in rev 12. I believe that this finalizes all the editorial comments on this section.

We are also addressing recent comments received. I personally don’t think this will result in a change in the draft, but we can discuss on the mailer.

Regarding your comment on sending diff before publishing: thanks for the hint.

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 at 14:45
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Pablo,

It’s not clear to me whether this version -11 aims at addressing all received comments, or only the one related to section 4.16.1.

Could you please clarify to avoid misunderstanding? And avoiding unnecessary waiting or deadlock.

If -11 does not address all received comments (which is my personal assumption), could you please indicate the remaining ones that you are working on? And what’s the progress on this?

Finally, note that, although ultimately this is the text in the draft which matters, it’s also ok to first discuss the proposed resolution with the author, and then update the draft. This may also allow for more timey respond and avoid mixing all points

Thank you,
--Bruno

From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 5:53 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
Subject: Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi all,

Based on the email below and the received feedback we have published a new revision of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
This new version only introduces changes in the PSP section. Those changes are editorial changes destined to simplify the reading of the aforementioned section.
The diff does not change the specification of the behavior.

Please read and comment.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-11#section-4.16.1

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 28 February 2020 at 18:19
To: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <[e-mail]>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, 'SPRING WG List' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Resent from: <[e-mail]>
Resent to: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Resent date: Friday, 28 February 2020 at 18:19

Pablo, authors, WG,

Section 4.16.1 [1] is the subject of multiple comments and clarification questions. Most notably some comments from Brian.

Its current text is very focused on the technical specification. Technical specification is good and this is the primary objective to achieve interoperability. But some would say that it is a bit terse, especially given the amount of context behind it. So I think that it could benefit from some introduction text.

Could you work on some text to better introduce PSP and put it in context? Possibly working with Brian who is kind enough to work on improving the clarity of this section for everyone.
Quoting Brian “simply need more explanation in elementary terms”.

I personally have a few points in mind:

-          Clarifying what “Penultimate” refers to. This is required as there are multiple reading such “penultimate IPv6/SRv6 transit node” (which we all agree is not allowed by RFC 8200, so let’s make things clear that the document is not talking or suggesting or allowing this) or “penultimate SR Segment Endpoint Node indicated in the IPv6 destination address of the received IPv6 header”.

-          Clarify what you mean by “Pop”. (as this terminology is heavily borrowed from MPLS and may not be crystal clear for everyone, especially since the MPLS RFC is not a normative reference (and it should not be))

-          Clarify that given the nodes A—B—C,  the PSP flavor is done by penultimate Segment Endpoint “B” at the request of the IPv6 source node “A” as an outsourced service from the ultimate SR End Point “C”. “A”, “B” and “C” been within the same control domain.

Agreed that this is not changing anything in the spec, and may be obvious to you, and hopefully clear for people having read the relevant document, however from the comments it seems clear that some additional context may help to clarify. Also it’s plausible that some persons may only read this specific PSP section and react on it.

Thank you,
--Bruno

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10#section-4.16.1


From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 6:15 PM
To: 'SPRING WG List'
Cc: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming


Hello SPRING,



This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].



Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version, and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.



You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are only spring specifics.



If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.

This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into parallel independent discussions)



Thank you,

Bruno



[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.