Hi Acee, Thanks for your detailed review and comments. Please check inline below for responses.
We have also posted and updated version with these changes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-05 On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:02 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ketan, Co-Authors, > > I think we are close to WG last call. I have a few more editorial comments: > > 1. The OSPFv3 Router Information LSA is NOT an opaque LSA. There are > no OSPFv3 > Opaque LSAs. KT> Ack. Fixed. > > 2. Normally for OSPFv3 we refer to OSPFv3 routers and in SRv6 we refer > to nodes. In > my editorial comments, I've tried to maintain this distinction. KT> Ack > > 3. An adjective describing field length is singular regardless of the > number of octets. > So it is "2 octet field" rather than "2 octets field". Note that > I have a "2 car garage", > as opposed to a "2 cars garage". Also note that in RFC 8665, we > hyphenate the > octet-length adjective. KT> Ack > > 4. I also split some of the sentences including too many cascaded > clauses. In some > cases, I removed clauses that I thought were redundant. KT> Ack > > 5. There is ambiguity as to what is meant by "base" advertisements. I > attempted to remove > this ambiguity. This brought out the following question. Why do > we need this? > > Locators associated with Flexible Algorithms > SHOULD NOT be advertised in the base OSPFv3 prefix reachability > advertisements. Advertising the Flexible Algorithm locator in a > regular prefix reachability advertisement would apply to the > algorithm 0 path as well. > KT> Have fixed an issue in this text. > > Isn't this covered in the flex-algorithm draft that one can use an > infinite metric to avoid usage > for algorithm 0? KT> That is IP Flex Algo. > However, this isn't required? KT> Here the advertisement is in a separate LSA so the advertisement with LSInfinity metric is not required. Not sure if I've got your question right though ... > > > See suggested edits attached. KT> Ack. Thanks, Ketan > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Ketan Talaulikar < > [email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 8:46 AM > To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> > Cc: Robin Li <[email protected]>, lsr <[email protected]>, > draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions < > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Status of draft-ietf-lsr-ospv3-srv6-extensions > > Hi All, > > We have posted an update to this WG document: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-04 > > Most of the changes are editorial. The only content change is the > introduction of new "Route Types" to enable distinction between Type1/Type2 > external and NSSA advertisements of the SRv6 Locators. > > Request the WG to review and provide feedback on this version as we get > closer to the WGLC phase. > > Thanks, > Ketan (on behalf of co-authors) > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 8:26 PM Susan Hares <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > Robin: > > Thank- you for responding to me. > > As long as the OSPFv3 heads into WG LC at IETF114, then the BGP draft can > move quickly forward. > > It takes a long time to work to the top of Alvaro’s review queue. He is > willing to keep the place for the BGP document at the head of the line if I > can get the OSPFv3 document moved forward quickly. > > Thanks, > Sue > > From: Lizhenbin <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:20 AM > To: Susan Hares <mailto:[email protected]>; lsr <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions <mailto: > [email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Status of draft-ietf-lsr-ospv3-srv6-extensions > > > Hi Sue, > Sorry for the late response. Thanks very much for your reminding. We > co-authors are updating the draft and will refresh it soon. > We will try to move it to WGLC in the IETF114. For the issue of moving > BGP-LS without OSPFv3, I am not experienced enough to reply. Wish to learn > the ADs and other's suggestion. > > > Best Regards, > Robin > > > > > > > 李振斌 Li Zhenbin > Mobile: +86-13651017745/+968-91797068 > Email: mailto:[email protected] > 发件人：Susan Hares <mailto:[email protected]> > 收件人：lsr <mailto:[email protected]> > 抄 送：draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions <mailto: > [email protected]> > 时 间：2022-06-07 08:31:09 > 主 题：[Lsr] Status of draft-ietf-lsr-ospv3-srv6-extensions > > What is the status of draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions? Is this > draft ready for WG LC? Do you anticipate WG LC soon? > > This draft expired on 5/23/2022. It has not be updated since 5/23. Is > this just an oversight for the authors? > > draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09 references > draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions, and cannot go forward until the > status of this draft is resolved. > > Should IDR move draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09.txt forward without > draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions? > > Sue Hares > IDR Shepherd and chair > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
