Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11

2018-05-21 Thread Joel Halpern Direct 
Thank you.  I apologize for missing the other normative items.  With 
those, plus the elaboration on the SRMS, the status as PS makes good sense.


Yours,
Joel

On 5/21/18 11:45 AM, Ahmed Bashandy wrote:

Thanks a lot for the review

The document specifies externally visible behavior that must be 
implemented by routers, otherwise SR and LDP routers cannot talk to each 
other. For example, section 4.2.2  specifies preference rules. Another 
example is the last two paragraphs in section 4.2.1. Hence I do not 
think it can be informational. A third example is section 4.2 which 
requires the existence of one SRMS in order for SR-only to speak to 
LDP-only routers


But I agree that a more crisp description of SRMS is warranted. I will 
add a section describing the SRMS functionality and specifying what to 
do when receiving both prefix-SID sub-tlv and SRMS advertisements in the 
next version, which I plan to send out in the next few days



Ahmed



On 5/14/18 1:01 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-05-14
IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC.  
The
question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed Standards 
track

RFC is one that the ADs should examine.

Major issues:
 This document is quite readable, and quite useful.  If my reading 
below

 (minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine.
 However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS.  
Rather, it
 describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP 
integration and
 migration.  As such, this seems to me to be a really good 
Informational

 Document.

Minor issues:
 Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping
 Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they 
point to
 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 
as the
 defining source for the SRMS.  And that document does appear to 
define the

 SRMS.

Nits/editorial comments:






___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11

2018-05-21 Thread Ahmed Bashandy 

Thanks a lot for the review

The document specifies externally visible behavior that must be 
implemented by routers, otherwise SR and LDP routers cannot talk to each 
other. For example, section 4.2.2  specifies preference rules. Another 
example is the last two paragraphs in section 4.2.1. Hence I do not 
think it can be informational. A third example is section 4.2 which 
requires the existence of one SRMS in order for SR-only to speak to 
LDP-only routers


But I agree that a more crisp description of SRMS is warranted. I will 
add a section describing the SRMS functionality and specifying what to 
do when receiving both prefix-SID sub-tlv and SRMS advertisements in the 
next version, which I plan to send out in the next few days



Ahmed



On 5/14/18 1:01 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-05-14
IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC.  The
question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed Standards track
RFC is one that the ADs should examine.

Major issues:
 This document is quite readable, and quite useful.  If my reading below
 (minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine.
 However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS.  Rather, it
 describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP integration and
 migration.  As such, this seems to me to be a really good Informational
 Document.

Minor issues:
 Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping
 Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point to
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as the
 defining source for the SRMS.  And that document does appear to define the
 SRMS.

Nits/editorial comments:




___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art