Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:26:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: Boris Hassanov <bhassanov@yahoo.com>
To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>,
	"bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
Message-ID: <1353772673.1567701.1721427968534@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <AS2PR02MB8839A6C925585E9208627CC6F0A52@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <AS2PR02MB8839A6C925585E9208627CC6F0A52@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 5G7FG2XAZ3JZA6YW4FYFQLIRE26BWDS6
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bspring=5D_Re=3A_WG_Adoption_Call_for_draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-?=
 =?utf-8?q?mpls-interworking?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zhi-u0V5U0fjvzPFviSBkDKNw3M>

Hi Bruno and all,

I read the draft and support it's adoption because it is obviously very imp=
ortant work for practical SRv6 migrations or introduction/co-existence with=
=C2=A0 MPLS/SR-MPLS technologies.
It is worth to continue this work from my (customer) point of view to have =
practical, deployable and standard MPLS/SR-MPLS<-> SRv6 interworking.

Here are the few minor (more cosmetic) points which I want to mention after=
 reviewing the draft:
1)=C2=A0 Section 4. SRv6 SID behavior.
1.1)=C2=A0 4.1 End.DTM
....
S03.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Set the packet's associated FIB table to T
...
I would like to see some clarification, what is T here?
2)=C2=A0 Section 6. Interconnecting Binding SID.
I would add here the reference for RFC 9256 Section 6 that have a lot of in=
formation about BSID usage so will be quite helpful here too.
3)=C2=A0 I think it will be worth to move section 2 Interworking (IW) scena=
rios with Fig.1 Close to section 7, currently it is hard to jump back and w=
orth while reading the text in section 7 Interworking procedures.
4) 7.1 Transport IW

This sentence: "=C2=A0An SR-PCE=C2=A0[RFC8664]=C2=A0multi-domain On Demand =
Next-hop (ODN) SR policy=C2=A0[RFC9256]=C2=A0stitching end to end across di=
fferent data plane domains using interconnecting binding SIDs. " sounds too=
 complicated=C2=A0 and confusing IMO and also does not mention additional s=
cenarios which can accomplish the same goal as PCECC. I would re-phrase, fo=
r example, like this: "An SR-PCE=C2=A0[RFC8664]=C2=A0 based architecture wi=
th additional=C2=A0 functionality such as SR policy=C2=A0[RFC9256]=C2=A0 or=
 PCECC [RFC8283] with corresponding PCEP extensions and feature like=C2=A0O=
n Demand Next-hop (ODN)=C2=A0 can provide end to end stitching across diffe=
rent data plane domains using interconnecting binding SIDs"

5) 7.1.2.1 6oM
It is almost impossible to get the Control Plane example without any diagra=
m there.

6) Same as above for 7.1.2.2.1=C2=A0
I understand that making such ASCII-art is a tough task but=C2=A0 it will m=
ake reading much easier.

7) 7.2.1 Gateway interworking
I would re-phrase two last paragraphs (Prefix learned...) they are very com=
plicated for reading.


SY,
Boris



On Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 04:28:19 PM GMT+3, <bruno.decraene@orange.com=
> wrote:=20





=C2=A0=C2=A0


Dear WG:

=C2=A0

This message starts a three-week adoption call for

draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking, ending on August/1rst.

(The third week is to account for the busy IETF week.)

=C2=A0

>From the Abstract:

=C2=A0

This document describes SRv6 and MPLS/SR-MPLS interworking and co- existenc=
e procedures.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Please review the draft and consider whether you support its adoption

by the WG. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support

or opposition -- this is not a vote.

=C2=A0

If you are willing to provide a more in-depth review, please state it

explicitly to give the chairs an indication of the energy level in the

working group willing to work on the document.

=C2=A0

WG adoption is the start of the process. The fundamental question is

whether you agree the proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and

whether this draft represents a good starting point. The chairs are

particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not

authors of the document.

=C2=A0

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls=
-interworking

List discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=3Dsubje=
ct%3A%20draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Thanks!

=C2=A0

Bruno (for the Chairs)

_________________ ______________________________ __________________________=
____ ______________________________ _
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles 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 el=
ectroniques 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 inf=
ormation 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 dele=
te 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.

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org