Dear Paul,
Thanks a lot. I addressed both in -13 along with other IESG feedback.
There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-13
A diff from the previous version is available at:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Operations and
Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF.
Title : Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow
Information Export
Dear Erik,
Thanks a lot for your review and comment. I added the following sentence in the
-13 revision to make it clear which IEs are needed and where the decoding needs
to be done:
By using described information from srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior and
srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength the
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12: No Objection
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
Dear Eric,
Thanks for your comments.
With srhIPv6ActiveSegmentType the authors intended to have the operational
experience in SRv6 than we have in MPLS-SR with mplsTopLabelType
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9160
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12: 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
3: "This section specifies the new IPv6 SRH IPFIX IEs." -> "... the new IPFIX
IPv6 SRH IEs".
5.1: "Table 1 lists the new SRH IEs:" -> "... the new IPv6 SRH IEs" (because
that's the title under the table).
5.2: Remove "(Section 5.2)".
P.
On 23/05/2023 14:35,
Hi Éric,
As the Doc Shepherd, I'm sharing some context related to this comment:
> ### Section 6.3
>
> Beside encapsulation, I do not see how multiple (S)RHs could be in
> one IPv6
> packet. Anyway, the router will, per RFC 8200, only act on the
> outermost one.
> I.e., strongly suggest that
Dear Paul and Med,
Makes completely sense. I had the same thoughts. Thanks a lot. I submitted -12.
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-12
Best wishes
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Operations and
Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF.
Title : Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow
Information Export
In that case, I would update the names of sections 3 and 5.1 so that 5.1 and
5.2 are consistent, eg:
5.1. New IPFIX IPv6 SRH Information Elements
5.2. New IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry
Moreover, please use consistent terminology around the words "IPFIX", "IPv6",
and "SRH" /
Hi Thomas, all,
Thanks for implementing the changes.
Looks good to me except one point: 5.1 as about new IEs. I think you
should make this change:
OLD:
5.1.10. New IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry
NEW:
5.2. New IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry
Cheers,
Med
12 matches
Mail list logo
