Hi, Jie.
Thanks for the update and changes. Unfortunately we haven't quite
finished...
The removal of the strict constraint also means it is necessary to
either change or remove this sentence in the previous paragraph - s3.2,
para 2:
The ingress
node MUST ensure that the entity (node or interface), at which
loopback is intended to occur, is marked as a strict hop in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO) subobject.
As regards the bidirectional LSP story, I think that what you wrote
below ought to go in the draft.
This is especially true if the changes I suggested for the attribute
draft are accepted, because it affects how the ERO Hop attributes
subobject is interpreted - and where it/they should be placed in the list.
Sorry this has turned into such a saga!!
Regards,
Elwyn
On 05/03/2015 06:07, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Elwyn,
Thanks for your comments, a new revision -05 was submitted yesterday to solve
your comments.
Regarding the bidirectional LSPs, my understanding is that as specified in this
draft, where loopback should be enabled is determined by the ERO subobject
prior to the Hop Attribute subobject. So if it is an IP address, the loopback
would be enabled on both directions of the bidirectional LSP. If it is a label
identifying one direction, then loopback would be enabled for that direction.
Many thanks,
Jie
-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Elwyn Davies
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:46 AM
To: General area reviewing team; draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb.all;
[email protected]
Subject: [Teas] [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt (updated)
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2015/03/03
IETF LC End Date: 2015/02/18
IESG Telechat date: 20150305
Summary: Almost ready for PS. I noticed at a late stage in the last call
reviewing process that the requirement that the hop before a loopback node
should be a strict hop was unnecessary. The draft editor, Dong Jie, has agreed
that this is the case and is checking that the removal of this constraint is
acceptable to the other authors. There is one other outstanding fix agreed for
a nit. Otherwise all my last call comments have been cleared. Thanks.
An additional minor issue about labels has come to light. See below.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
s3.2, para 2, et seq:
The requirement that the hop before the loopback entity MUST be a strict hop is
unnecessary. The essential constraint (which is fully specified in the -04
draft)
is that the entity at which loopback is to occur has to be uniquely identified
(i.e.,
it can't be an 'abstract node'
signifying (potentially) a group of nodes, such as an AS). I have discussed
this
with Dong Jie, as editor, and he has agreed that the constraint is not needed.
A new version of the draft removing the constraint is in hand, pending
agreement with the other authors and checking with the WG.
s3.2:
If dealing with a bidirectional LSP as per RFC 3473, and the ERO waypoint (say,
an IPv4 address) is qualified with two Label subobjects, does loopback put BOTH
paths into loopback? Alternatively, the loopback flag could be defined so that
it applies to only one of the Labels if the ERO Hop attribute subobject is
placed
after the Label or to both if it is placed immediately after the identifying
subobject (in this case the IPv4 address subobject).
Nits/editorial comments:
s3.2, para 3:
OLD :
Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be
less than 32, and for type values 1 and 2, the prefix length MUST be
32 and 128 respectively.
NEW:
Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be
less than 32 (i.e., able to identify a specific entity where a loopback can
occur, see Section 4.3), and for type values 1 (IPv4 address) and 2
(IPv6
address), the prefix length MUST be 32 and 128 respectively.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
