Hi Eric,
thanks for comments, please see inline (##PP):
On 18/05/2021 18:05, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the work put into this document.
Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.
Thank you to Christian Hopps for his shepherd's write-up (including the WG
consensus).
I hope that this helps to improve the document,
Regards,
-éric
== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 2 --
Any reason why the bits of the 'Flags' field are not reserved (except for the
O-bit) ?
##PP
sure, marked them as Reserved
or be in a to-be-created IANA registry?
##PP
there is a registry defined for these bits in section 11.7
I would expect the default
value for sending them (usually 0) and what to do on the receiving side(s) when
the value is not 0 (usually ignore them). E.g., see the section 7.1
##PP
yes, this has been commented by others and I have added the statement
similar to 7.1 already.
-- Section 3 --
Isn't it obvious that the "Segment Routing Algorithm" is also supported by SRv6
routers ? Consider removing this section ? If you prefer to keep it, then
please use the wording "Segment Routing Algorithm" exactly as in the IANA
registry.
##PP
I prefer to keep it to make it clear that the SRv6 algo participation is
using the same signaling as SR MPLS. That may not be that obvious as it
may look like.
Corrected the sub-TLV name to match IANA.
-- Section 7.1 (also 7.2 and possibly others) --
The header 'Length' should not be defined as 'variable' as it is probably a
fixed length of 1 octet. Specifying how it is measured and in which units
(octets, 32-bit word, ...) is probably welcome.
##PP
with "variable" we refer to the value of the Length's field, not it's
length. We use this in many ISIS RFCs (e.g. RFC8667, section 2.2.2.)
-- Section 7.2 --
What is the default value of the "Flags" field?
##PP
I added:
"All bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt."
== NITS ==
-- title-
Should the plural form be used for 'extension' ?
##PP
sure, changed to plural.
-- Section 1 --
s\topology/algorithm specific\topology/algorithm-specific\ ?
##PP
done
-- Section 13 --
While there is a rather long contributors list, there is no acknowledgement
section. The latter is of course optional but usual. Should the doc or
last call reviewers be acknowledged ?
##PP
sure, added it.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
