Dear Jim, Thank you very much for the review. We addressed your comments together with some minor editorial nits from Med in version -09 which just has been published. Below inline the feedback
Best wishes Thomas The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/ There is also an htmlized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-09 JG> The above needs to be fixed. OSPFv3 is not [RFC9352] and I assume that the reference should point to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/, ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions is an out-of-date reference as it is now https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352, and RFC 9252 is "BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)" that provides protocol extensions for SRv6-based BGP services. TG> Thanks. References corrected. JG> Section 4 of the referenced draft does not define new endpoint JG> behaviors for SRv6; the document defines new flavors for existing behaviors. TG> Correct. Based on the endpoint behaviors the encoding of the segment list can be deducted. We adjusted the wording From The SID endpoint behaviors described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] determine wherever the segment list is compressed or not. To The SR Endpoint Flavors, described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] defines new flavors for SID endpoint behaviors, and determine wherever the segment list encoding is compressed, along with the flavor. JG> The above description is not technically accurate. While section 2 JG> of RFC8754 does define the SRH, the 'Segments Left' field of the SRH is actually defined in Section 4.4 of RFC8200 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200#section-4.4) and RFC8754 points to that reference. Section 5.7 of this document should also point to the correct reference. TG> Well spotted. We adjusted the wording as following to include both TG> references in the right context: srhSegmentsIPv6Left 8-bit unsigned integer defining the number of segments remaining to reach the end of the segment list from the SRH, as specified by the "Segments Left" field in Section 4.4 of [RFC8200] and mentioned part of the SRH in Section 2 of [RFC8754]). -----Original Message----- From: Jim Guichard via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 3:04 AM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Subject: Jim Guichard's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-08: Discuss 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1: Also, three routing protocol extensions, OSPFv3 [RFC9352], IS-IS [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] and BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers(Prefix-SIDs) [RFC9252] The above needs to be fixed. OSPFv3 is not [RFC9352] and I assume that the reference should point to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/, ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions is an out-of-date reference as it is now https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352, and RFC 9252 is "BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)" that provides protocol extensions for SRv6-based BGP services. Section 3: srhSegmentsIPv6Left 8-bit unsigned integer defining the number of segments remaining to reach the end of the segment list as defined in Section 2 of [RFC8754]. The above description is not technically accurate. While section 2 of RFC8754 does define the SRH, the 'Segments Left' field of the SRH is actually defined in Section 4.4 of RFC8200 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200#section-4.4) and RFC8754 points to that reference. Section 5.7 of this document should also point to the correct reference. Section 5.9.1: | TBD15 | OSPFv3 | [RFC-to-be],<xref target="RFC9352"> | | | Segment Routing | | +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------------+ | TBD16 | IS-IS | [RFC-to-be],<xref target=" | | | Segment Routing | I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions"/> | +-------+--------------------+---------------------------------------+ These references need to be corrected as indicated above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 6.2: The SID endpoint behaviors described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] determine wherever the segment list is compressed or not. Section 4 of the referenced draft does not define new endpoint behaviors for SRv6; the document defines new flavors for existing behaviors.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
