Re: [Teas] [spring] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

Hi Acee,

Many thanks for your review and suggestions. I agree with them and will update the draft accordingly.

Please see some further replies inline [Chongfeng]: 

From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 2:42 AM
To: Lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; teas@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

Speaking as WG Member and Document Shepherd: 

I have reviewed the document and have three comments. 

      1. The document can go forward implying that draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-10 is the accepted solution for supporting higher scale of NRPs. While the reference is informative, the text implies this. I’d remove the reference altogether  and this is reflected in my comments.
[Chongfeng]: This is OK, we will follow this change in next revision.

      2. To support NRPs in IS-IS, three pieces are required - IS-IS SR (MPLS and SRv6), IS-IS Multi-topology, and the SR resource-aware segment. The latter is not being progressed in SPRING yet. If it is not accepted, the draft will be stranded on awaiting publication. I’ve added the SPRING WG to the to list.
[Chongfeng] Understood. Resource-aware segments is a WG document and IMO it has been stable for a while, hopefully it will progress quickly in SPRING.

      3. There is design principle phrasing in draft-ietf-teas-nrp-scalability-03 which discourage the usage of “any” IGP-based solution (as Les commented). If you read the entire document, this is not the case and I’d suggest these principles be qualified to match the intent.   Since there are common authors on both documents, I’d hope this could be accomplished.
[Chongfeng] I will leave this to the co-author of the nrp-scalability draft to comment, personally I agree with your reading of that document.

See the attached diff for editorial comments and addressing #1.
[Chongfeng] Thanks a lot for providing the diff.

Speaking as LSR WG Co-chair: 

Of these comments, #1 is easy to remedy and #3 is on the other TEAS document. IMO, #2 remains the only potential blocker to moving forward with publication. I’d solicit others opinions on this point. While draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-08 simply defines the semantics for resource-aware segments, it is not certain that it will go forward and it seems to be critical to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.
[Chongfeng] Understood. It would be efficient if both documents could move forward in parallel.

Thanks,
Acee

Best regards
Chongfeng

> On Jan 8, 2024, at 5:50 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This begins a two week LSR Working Group last call for the “Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)”. Please express your support or objection prior to Tuesday, January 23rd, 2024. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee

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