Hi Ron, Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:49 PM Ron Bonica via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Ron Bonica > Review result: Not Ready > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services.txt. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area > Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments > just > like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve > them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For > more > details on the INT Directorate, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>. > > Major issues: > > 1) In Section 3.2.1, the draft transposes bits into the MPLS Label field. > This > is surprising because MPLS appears nowhere in the forwarding plane. Maybe > we > shouldn't advertise an MPLS label? > KT> You are correct that there are no MPLS labels used in the forwarding. The label fields are part of the BGP NLRI Encoding and not something introduced newly. The transposition scheme leverages them for encoding efficiency and better packing of BGP updates. > > 2) In Section 3.2.1 the draft says: > > BGP speakers that do not support this specification may misinterpret, > on the reception of an SRv6-based BGP service route update, the part > of the SRv6 SID encoded in MPLS label field(s) as MPLS label values > for MPLS-based services. Implementations supporting this > specification SHOULD provide a mechanism to control the advertisement > of SRv6-based BGP service routes on a per-neighbor and per-service > basis. The details of deployment designs and implementation options > are outside the scope of this document. > > s/BGP speakers that do not support this specification/Legacy BGP > implementations > KT> I am, personally, not in favor of using the term "legacy" in this case. > > It seems that this isn't backwards compatible unless either: > > - the SHOULD becomes a MUST > - the mechanism is described in this document > KT> Ack. We can change the SHOULD to MUST. Thanks, Ketan > > 3) I concur with Warren Kumari's DISCUSS > > > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
