Russ - Thanx for the review. Responses inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 7:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20 > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing > ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last > Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through > discussion or by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20 > Reviewer: Russ White > Review Date: 10 November 2018 > IETF LC End Date: 12 December 2018 > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > considered prior to publication. > > Overall, this document is well written, and the mechanisms described are > well thought out. > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > No minor issues found. > > Nits: > > Section 2.1 > > Algorithms identifiers are defined in Section 3.2. > > "Algorithm" rather than "Algorithms." > [Les:] Ack - thanx. > Sections 2.1 and 2.2 > > "Length" is listed as "variable," but not further definition is provided. From > the text it seems like valid values here would be 3 or 20, in octets, as this > is > explicit in section 2.3, but it might be good to clarify (ie, just copy the > text for > "Length" in section 2.3 to these sections as well). > [Les:] The length of the sub-TLV is variable because the length of the SID itself is variable. Both sections have the text: <snip> SID/Index/Label: according to the V and L flags, it contains either: * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the SID/Label space advertised by this router using the encodings defined in Section 3.1. In this case the V and L flags MUST be unset. * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and L flags MUST be set. <end snip> The text for Section 2.3 is necessarily different because there is no flags field in the SID/Label sub-TLV and there also are no additional fields in the sub-TLV other than the SID itself. I therefore think the text as is should be fine - but I am open to suggestion. Russ - could you review this one more time in light of the above and let me know what you think? Les > 😊 /r _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
