Peter: Hi!
I looked at -12. I have a couple of nits/minor comments below. There's only one significant one related to the information that must be shared between the Prefix Reachability TLV and the SRv6 Locator TLV: it is currently phrased as an example. We're also waiting of the resolution of the registry thread. If that results in not needed to add registries then you can address the comments below with any other IETF LC comments. Otherwise I'll wait for an update. Thanks! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 16 Abstract ... 25 This documents updates [RFC7370] by modifying an existing registry. [minor] s/[RFC7370]/RFC 7370 No references in the Abstract. ... 102 1. Introduction ... 137 This documents updates [RFC7370] by modifying an existing registry 138 Section 11.1.2. [nit] s/Section 11.1.2/(Section 11.1.2) ... 192 4.1. Maximum Segments Left MSD Type 194 The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type specifies the maximum value of the 195 "Segments Left" field [RFC8754] in the SRH of a received packet 196 before applying the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID. [minor] s/specifies/signals ... 229 4.4. Maximum End D MSD Type 231 The Maximum End D MSD Type specifies the maximum number of SIDs 232 present in an SRH when performing decapsulation. These includes, but 233 not limited to, End.DX6, End.DT4, End.DT46, End with USD, End.X with 234 USD as defined in [RFC8986]). [nit] s/[RFC8986])/[RFC8986] ... 243 5. SRv6 SIDs and Reachability ... 263 Locators associated with algorithm 0 and 1 (for all supported 264 topologies) SHOULD be advertised in a Prefix Reachability TLV (236 or 265 237) so that legacy routers (i.e., routers which do NOT support SRv6) 266 will install a forwarding entry for algorithm 0 and 1 SRv6 traffic. [minor] s/NOT/not This is not an rfc2119 keyword -- and someone else will ask for the same thing. 268 In cases where a locator advertisement is received in both a Prefix 269 Reachability TLV and an SRv6 Locator TLV - (e.g. prefix, prefix- 270 length, MTID all being equal and Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV), 271 the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred when 272 installing entries in the forwarding plane. This is to prevent 273 inconsistent forwarding entries between SRv6 capable and SRv6 274 incapable routers. Such preference of Prefix Reachability 275 advertisement does not have any impact on the rest of the data 276 advertised in the SRv6 Locator TLV. [major] "e.g. prefix, prefix-length, MTID all being equal and Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV" This text should not be an example because those are the fields that should match. Please make it clear: "The locator advertisement is both TLVs is considered the same when the following fliends match..." (or something like that with better words). ... 866 11.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs 868 This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS 869 TLV Codepoints Registry to control the assignment of sub-TLV types 870 for the SID Sub-TLVs specified in this document - Section 7.2, 871 Section 8.1, Section 8.2. The suggested name of the new registry is 872 "sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 End SID (5) (sub-TLV of TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 873 and 237) and SRv6 End.X SID (43)/SRv6 LAN End.X SID (44) (sub-TLVs of 874 TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 and 237)". The registration procedure is 875 "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. Guidance for the Designated 876 Experts is provided in [RFC7370]The following assignments are made by 877 this document: [nit] s/[RFC7370]The/[RFC7370]. The 879 Type Description Encoding 880 Reference 881 --------------------------------------------------------- 882 0 Reserved 883 1 SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV Section 9 884 2-255 Unassigned [major] The reference should be "[This Document]". [End] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
