Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: 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 to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for a well written / easy to understand document. I have a few suggestions / nits. Please note: If the WG has already discussed these, and come to other decisions, I'm fine with that... 1: "In order to have a node segment to reach the node, a network operator SHOULD configure at least one node segment per routing instance, topology, algorithm. " Perhaps: "segment per (routing instance, topology, algorithm)." (or "set of ..", or "combination of..." or something - not quite sure how best to word, but this seems slightly confusing). 2: "If the SRGB of a node does not conform to the structure specified in this section or to the previous two rules, then this SRGB MUST be completely ignored by all routers in the routing domain and the node MUST be treated as if it does not have an SRGB." Shouldn't this be logged somewhere? " The rules applicable to the SRGB are also applicable to the SRLB, except rule that says that the SRGB MUST only be used to instantiate global SIDs into the MPLS forwarding plane. The recommended, minimum, or maximum size of the SRGB and/or SRLB is a matter of future study" 3: I think there is a missing word(s) between 'except rule' - perhaps "for the"? 4: Missing period. 5: "For the purpose of incoming label collision resolution, a routing instance is identified by a single incoming label downloader to FIB." - is downloader the right word here? 6: "If the derived numerical value varies for the same configuration, then an implementation SHOULD make numerical value used to identify a routing instance configurable." This is a philosophical point, but it seems like I might always want to be able to configure this -- perhaps just "Implementations SHOULD make...? " 7: "This document defines the default tie breaking rules that SHOULD be implemented. An implementation MAY choose to support different tie-breaking rules and MAY use one of the these instead of the default tie-breaking rules. All routers in a routing domain SHOULD use the same tie-breaking rules to maximize forwarding consistency." Is there any reason not to require that all implementations implement these rules (mandatory to implement)? I don't want to end up in a situation where I buy boxes from Vendor X, and then cannot add Vendor Y, because they don't share a set of rules. 8: "R2 is the next-hop along the shortest path towards R8. By applying the steps in Section 2.8 the outgoing label downloaded to R1’s FIB corresponding to the global SID index 8 is 1008 because the SRGB of R2 is [1000,5000] as shown in Figure 2." - I was initially confused by the [1000,5000] as it isn't represented like this in the figure. Perhaps change either this text, or the text in the figure? _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
