Dear Paul,
Thanks a lot. I adjusted the indent structure as it was before but under 5.1 since Med added the 5.1 "New SRH Information Elements" section and reference it in the text, which makes sense to me and addressed your nit. Here the -10 document: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt The diff from your last input: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1= https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/e9edb50bfa901017d45b8237b2bedcd08c95dfd3/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/3dc1a87f423fe8aa8f61691df924b95971c38860/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt> I am now submitting the document so that IESG has enough time to review before the telechat. Best wishes Thomas From: Aitken, Paul <pait...@ciena.com> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 12:26 PM To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <thomas.g...@swisscom.com> Cc: ie-doct...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; rwil...@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1271817] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh (ipfix) Thomas, 1. Please check the indentation of section 5's subsections. ie, either 5.1.x should be 5.x as before, or 5.2 and 5.3 should be 5.1.11 and 5.1.12. 2. In section 5.1.10, please say who the Expert Reviewers will be. Is it IE-Doctors, or SRH Experts, or some other group? The allocation policy of this new subregistry is Expert Review by ... communicating this decision to the IANA P. On 18/05/2023 09:27, thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com> wrote: Dear Med, Thanks a lot for your comment on the designated expert in the "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry" and the removal of the intro section in the "IANA Considerations" Here the -10 document: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt The diff from your last input: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/3dc1a87f423fe8aa8f61691df924b95971c38860/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt Best wishes Thomas From: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 7:48 AM To: 'Aitken, Paul' <pait...@ciena.com><mailto:pait...@ciena.com> Cc: ie-doct...@ietf.org<mailto:ie-doct...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org<mailto:drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org>; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com> Subject: RE: [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1271817] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh (ipfix) Dear Paul, Thank you very much. I merged all your input. PA> 5.4. srhActiveSegmentIPv6 / Additional Information, Changed from RFC8754 to RFC8402, is that correct? Please say which section of the RFC is relevant. TG> That is correct. The active section is specified in Section 2 of RFC 8402 and being obtained from the SRH based from the Segment List and Segment Left. I add the section in the RFC 8402 reference now as well. Thanks for spotting this. Here the -10 document: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt The diff from your last input: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/2669406f75d0ad66d830d9981c2d0c480dc88e2b/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt And the diff to -09: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-09.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10.txt Best wishes Thomas From: Aitken, Paul <pait...@ciena.com<mailto:pait...@ciena.com>> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9:29 PM To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>> Cc: ie-doct...@ietf.org<mailto:ie-doct...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org<mailto:drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org>; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1271817] expert review for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh (ipfix) Thomas, 3. srhSegmentIPv6BasicList "As specified in Section 2 of [RFC8754]" versus 5.5 / Description, "As described in Section 2 of [RFC8754]". 3. srhSegmentIPv6ListSection Remove "Exposes" for consistency with 5.6 / Description. 3. srhSegmentsIPv6Left "Segment List from the SRH" -> "Segment List in the SRH" for consistency with 5.7 / Description. 3. srhIPv6Section Remove "Exposes" for consistency with 5.8 / Description. 3. srhIPv6ActiveSegmentType and 5.9. / Description Remove the first "from" to avoid "from ... from": Name of the routing protocol or PCEP extension from where the active SRv6 segment has been learned from. 3. srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength The definition is inconsistent with 5.10 / Description. 5.4. srhActiveSegmentIPv6 / Additional Information Changed from RFC8754 to RFC8402, is that correct? Please say which section of the RFC is relevant. 5.7. srhSegmentsIPv6Left / Additional Information Please don't duplicate the Description; just list the information once. Thanks, P.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
