Hi Yingzhen, From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 7:52 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: lsr <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-06.txt (Corrected Address)
I support progressing this draft. I have the following minor comments for the authors to consider: · The title of Section 4 of this draft is “Advertisement of SRH Operation Limits”, and really it only covers the advertisements of MSDs, so may consider to change the title to be consistent with the ISIS SRv6 extensions draft, "Advertising Maximum SRv6 SID Depths”. · The subsections in section 4 are almost identical to the subsections in draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extesions. It’s up to the authors and the WG to decide whether to keep this duplicate. I have encouraged LSR authors to allow protocol encoding section to stand on their own rather than reference the other document and describe the deltas. In some cases, OSPF and IS-IS can share IANA registries for common enumerations. I see Ketan replied consistent with this approach. Thanks, Acee · In draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions, “topology/algorithm” is used, and it’s not consistently used in this draft. For example, in section 5 the second paragraph, only “algorithm” is used, while “topology/algorithm” is used later. Nits (line numbers are from idnits): 208 the SR Algorithm TLV defined in [RFC8665] as described in [RFC8666] SR Algorithm/SR-Algorithm Please add a “-“ to be consistent with RFC 8665. 355 The SRv6 Locator LSA has a function code of TBD while the S1/S2 bits “TBD” should be replaced with “42” as in IANA considerations. Thanks, Yingzhen On Jul 29, 2022, at 10:16 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: As promised in today’s LSR WG meeting, this begins a 3 week WG Last Call, ending on August 19th, 2022, for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions. The extra week is to account for PIST (Post-IETF Stress Syndrome). The corresponding IS-IS draft is already on the RFC Queue and there are implementations. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/ Thanks, Acee & Chris _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
