Thanks a lot for the thorough review
I will take care of the comments in next version and I reply to this
email explaining how they were addressed
Ahmed
On 5/25/18 2:22 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
I think it is well past time that we completed this foundation work
and got an RFC published. So I support passing this draft to the AD
again.
However, we do need to clean it up first. Hopefully this won't be a
lot of effort for the editors as nearly all I found were editorial
nits.
As a side comment, it isn't a success that section 2.5 is so large.
Full one quarter of the document is dedicated to the edge case of
collision avoidance. That said, I don't have a better solution.
Thanks for the work.
Adrian
====
idnits isn't as clean as it could be. In particular:
- 2.5.2.1 uses IP address 1.1.1.1 and should pick one from RFC 6890.
- Missing normative reference for RFC 8174
- [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] is not used
- [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] have spurious spaces in
the filenames
---
You'll need to move the "Requirements Language" to be Section 1.1.
---
Section 2
s/link State IGPs/link state IGPs/
s/Segment ID (SIDs)/Segment IDs (SIDs)/
---
You use SRGB in 2.2 before you expand it in 2.3
---
2.2
oThe label value MUST be unique within the router on which the MCC
is running. i.e. the label MUST only be used to represent the SID.
I don't think you mean this. You have written that the label value has
be unique which means that only one label value can be assigned to a
SID.
I think what you mean is that
oThe label value MUST NOT be used for any other purpose on the
router on which the MCC is running. I.e. the label MUST NOT be
used to represent more than one SID or for any other forwarding
purpose on the router.
---
2.2
Unusual to have a normative reference to an IANA URL as you have for
[reserved-MPLS]. Besides, the URL you give is 404.
You would do better to reference RFC 7274.
You might also fix the language and terminology, thus...
OLD
oThe label value MUST NOT be identical to or within the range of
any reserved label value or range [reserved-MPLS], respectively.
NEW
oThe label value MUST NOT come from the range of special purpose
labels [RFC7274].
---
2.3 ditto
OLD
oEvery range in the list of ranges specifying the SRGB MUST NOT
cover or overlap with a reserved label value or range [reserved-
MPLS], respectively.
NEW
oEvery range in the list of ranges specifying the SRGB MUST NOT
cover or overlap with the range of special purpose labels
[RFC7274].
---
2.3
oIf the SRGB of a node does not conform to the structure specified
in this section or to the previous two rules, then this SRGB is
completely ignored and the node is treated as if it does not have
an SRGB.
Can we fix this passive voice? Presume the intention is that the
advertisement of this SRGB is ignored by any routing protocol speakers
that receive it.
Two points of clarification I think we should add:
1. The *whole* SRGB is ignored, not simply the range of labels in a set
of ranges that is at fault
2. The term "ignore" in this case means that no SR action is taken, but
the SRGB advertisement continues to be propagated within the routing
protocol.
---
2.3 (bottom of page 5)
s/reserved label/special purpose label/
---
2.3
s/contiguous range of label/contiguous range of labels/
---
2.5
s/(e.g.,over/(e.g., over/
s/map to the same incoming/maps to the same incoming/
s/FECk} maps to the same/FECk} map to the same/
s/non-zero algo/non-zero algorithm/
---
2.5.1
The plural of FEC is FECs not FEC's
---
2.5.1
2. if more than one competing FEC remains after step 1, sort them and
select the smallest numerical FEC value
Is sorting required? Can we just have...
2. if more than one competing FEC remains after step 1, select the
smallest numerical FEC value
---
2.5.1
An implementation may choose to implement additional
s/may/MAY/
---
2.5.2
s/THEN/then/
---
2.7
s/plan./plane./
---
Terminology for adjacency SIDs needs to be harmonised.
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing has "IGP-Adjacency Segment" and
"Adj-SID"
This document has:
adjacency SID (2.5.1)
Adj-SID (2.7.3)
adj-SID (2.7.3)
IGP-adjacency-SID (2.8)
IGP-Adj-SID (2.11.1)
IGP adj-SID (2.11.2)
---
Some of the section names are overly long and can be cut down without
risking much. This helps with layout and readability. Just a suggestion,
but...
OLD
2.1. Supporting Multiple Forwarding Behaviors for the Same Prefix
2.8. MPLS Label downloaded to FIB corresponding to Global and Local SIDs
2.10.1. Forwarding Behavior for PUSH and CONTINUE Operation for Global
SIDs
2.10.2. Forwarding Behavior for NEXT Operation for Global SIDs
2.11.1. Forwarding Behavior Corresponding to PUSH Operation on Local SIDs
2.11.2. Forwarding Behavior Corresponding to CONTINUE Operation for
Local SIDs
NEW
2.1. Multiple Forwarding Behaviors for the Same Prefix
2.8. MPLS Label Downloaded to FIB for Global and Local SIDs
2.10.1. Forwarding for PUSH and CONTINUE of Global SIDs
2.10.2. Forwarding for NEXT Operation for Global SIDs
2.11.1. Forwarding for PUSH Operation on Local SIDs
2.11.2. Forwarding for CONTINUE Operation for Local SIDs
---
For some reason the definite article is missing before a lot of
instances of "FIB". For example, in 2.8...
The label corresponding to the global SID "Si" represented by the
global index "I" downloaded to FIB is used to match packets whose
---
2.10
OLD
This section specifies forwarding behavior, including the outgoing
label(s) calculations corresponding to a global SID when applying
PUSH, CONTINUE, and NEXT operations in the MPLS forwarding plane.
This document covers the calculation of outgoing label for the top
label only. The case where outgoing label is not the top label and is
part of a stack of labels that instantiates a routing policy or a
traffic engineering tunnel is covered in other documents such as
[I.D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy].
NEW
This section specifies forwarding behavior, including the calculation
of outgoing labels, that corresponds to a global SID when applying
PUSH, CONTINUE, and NEXT operations in the MPLS forwarding plane.
This document covers the calculation of the outgoing label for the
top label only. The case where the outgoing label is not the top
label and is part of a stack of labels that instantiates a routing
policy or a traffic engineering tunnel is covered in other documents
such as [I.D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy].
---
2.10.1
s/{RFC3031]/[RFC3031]/
---
2.10.2 has
oApply the instruction associated with the incoming label prior to
popping
This is a little ambiguous. Might be read that the instruction should be
applied prior to popping. The text that follows des clarify, but perhaps
rewrite as...
oApply the instruction associated with the incoming label that has
been popped
---
In order that ECMP descriptions work in the examples, Section 3 just
needs a quick comment like.
All links in this example have the same IGP metric.
---
While it is largely OK to defer the discussion of manageability in
Section 5 to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing, it would make sense
to make explicit reference to RFC 8287 because that is the key document
that means no further OAM discussion is needed in this document.
Probably just copy in the following paragraph
SR OAM use cases for the MPLS data plane are defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase].SR OAM procedures for the MPLS data
plane are defined in [RFC8287].
---
8.
Possibly Himanshu would prefer to be named as "Himanshu Shah".
*From:*spring [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*[email protected]
*Sent:* 24 May 2018 18:14
*To:* SPRING WG List
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [spring] WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13
Hello Working Group,
This email starts a Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13 [1] which is considered
mature and ready for a final working group review.
Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version
yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *June 08*.
As a reminder, this document had already passed a WGLC more than a
year ago on version -06 [2], had been sent to the AD but then returned
to the WG.
Since then, the document has significantly changed, so please read it
again. In particular, it now includes the resolution in case of
incoming label collision. Hence it killed
draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution.
Both co-chairs co-author this document, hence:
- Shraddha has agreed to be the document shepherd.. Thank you Shraddha.
- Martin, our AD, has agreed to evaluate the WG consensus.
Thank you,
Bruno, Rob
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13
[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/STiYsQJWuVXA1C9hK4BiUnyMu7Y
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
