Hi Ben,
On 10/15/18, 9:58 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email protected]> wrote:
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-23: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for addressing my Discuss point; original ballot comment preserved
below.
Can SID be expanded on first usage --
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt does not list it
as "well known". (It also doesn't appear to list "Segment Identifier" as
one of the expansions.)
This is basically the same thing I said for the IS-IS document that creates
the MSD types registry, but I'm not sure I followed correctly the meaning
of MSD type 1 for SR-enabled vs. non-SR-enabled networks. In particular,
I still don't really understand why it's okay to use the same codepoint for
the max SID depth in SR-enabled networks and for the max label depth in
non-SR MPLS networks. Why couldn't they just be separate MSD Type
codepoints?
Section-by-section comments follow.
Section 2
If the Node MSD TLV appears in multiple Router
Information LSAs that have the same flooding scope, the Node MSD TLV
in the Router Information (RI) LSA with the numerically smallest
Instance ID MUST be used and subsequent instances of the Node MSD TLV
MUST be ignored. [...]
Unless there is a sorting requirement I've forgotten about, shouldn't this
be "other" rather than "subsequent"?
In this context, "subsequent" refers to the instance ID rather than the
ordering of RI LSAs. However, it would be rare that an OSPF router would not
originate RI LSAs in order.
Thanks,
Acee
Section 6
Thanks for the updates in response to the secdir review; they help a lot.
If the value is larger than supported - instantiation of a path that
can't be supported by the head-end (the node performing the SID
imposition).
This is supposed to mean "(instantiation by the head-end) of a (path that
can't be supported)", not "instantiation of a path (that can't be supported
by the head-end)", right?
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
