Hi Barry, Many thanks for your review. See inline with [PC].
Regards, Pablo. -----Original Message----- From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: lunes, 21 de septiembre de 2020 19:17 To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bruno Decraene <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-19: (with COMMENT) Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-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-srv6-network-programming/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout the document: It should be “an SID”, “an FIB”, “an RIR”, and some others, not “a”, because one reads these as “ess-eye-dee” and “eff-eye-bee”, not as the expansions thereof. [PC] Agreed for RIR. For the other ones I’ve seen some disagreement on this regard in between native English speakers. I’m not a native English speaker, hence I would prefer to leave the decision up to RFC Editor. — Section 3.1 — An SRv6 endpoint behavior MAY require additional information I think this is a statement of fact, so “may” (or “might”), not “MAY”. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. — Section 3.2 — Nit: The plural of “SID” is “SIDs”, without an apostrophe. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. The provider historically deployed IPv6 and assigned infrastructure address from a portion of the fc00::/7 prefix Nit: “addresses”. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. In another example, a large mobile and fixed line service provider Nit: hyphenate “fixed-line”. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. IPv6 address consumption in both these examples is minimum, Nit: “minimal” (also, put a comma before “respectively”). [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. A remote node uses the IANA behavior codepoint to map the received SID (B:N:FUNCT) to a behavior. I don’t know what “IANA behavior codepoint” means. As the rest of the sentence makes it clear that this is mapping to “a behavior”, maybe it’s better to say “registered codepoint”, or some such? Or, as you say a couple of paragraphs down, “Endpoint Behavior codepoint”? In any case, please be consistent about “IANA behavior”, “IANA Behavior”, and “IANA Endpoint Behavior”. My preference would be to avoid saying “IANA” in these, but use your judgment on what’s most understandable and clear. [PC] Indeed. I will change all references to Endpoint Behavior codepoint. o Assign an SRv6 Locator 2001:db8:bbbb:3::/64 to the Router 3 in their SR Domain What is “the Router 3” (and router 4)? There’s no introduction nor diagram that says. Also, please be consistent in capitalization of these. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. — Section 3.3 — routing protocol specific aspects that are outside the scope of this Nit: “routing-protocol-specific” needs to be hyphenated. As that’s awkward, you might want to reword to avoid it, “are specific to the routing protocol and are outside the scope....” [PC] Reworded is better indeed. — Section 4 — The pseudocode describing these behaviors detail local processing Nit: “details”, singular, to match “pseudocode”. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. — Section 4.1 — The End behavior operates on the same FIB table (i.e. VRF, L3 relay id) associated to the packet. Is “i.e.” really what you want here? How does “VRF, L3 relay” equate to “FIB table”? [PC] Indeed. The corrected parenthesis should be: (i.e. identified by VRF or L3 relay id) — Section 4.16.1.3 — segments left to 0. The SDN controller knows that no-other node Nit: “no other” should not be hyphenated. For that matter, the word “other” isn’t needed anyway, because you have “after” in there. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. -as part of the decapsulation process the egress PE is required to terminates less bytes from the packet. I can’t figure this out. It looks like it should be “required to terminate”, but I don’t know what it means to “terminate less bytes”. Can you reword this? [PC] I propose the following diff: <OLD> as part of the decapsulation process the egress PE is required to terminates less bytes from the packet. </OLD> <NEW> as part of the decapsulation process the egress PE is required to parse and remove fewer bytes from the packet. </NEW> to the lookup engine in the forwarding ASIC. “ASIC” needs to be expanded. As this is the only place you use it, I suggest just using the expansion and not bothering with the abbreviation. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. — Section 7 — This document introduces SRv6 Endpoint and SR Policy Headend behaviors for implementation on SRv6 capable nodes in the network. As such, this document does not introduce any new security considerations. I’m not convinced of this. It seems that misuse (such as injection or alteration) of some of these Behaviors could, for example, result in packets being forwarded to nodes they were not intended to go to. Is it not important to discuss issues such as that: how these Behaviors might be attacked? Is that really fully covered in 8754 and 8402? [PC] You mention injection alteration or misuse of these behaviors, the paragraph preceding the one you quote in revision 19 states: “Additionally, [RFC8754] defines an HMAC TLV permitting SR Endpoint Nodes in the SR domain to verify that the SRH applied to a packet was selected by an authorized party and to ensure that the segment list is not modified after generation, regardless of the number of segments in the segment list.” This text was added to revision 19 as part of the SECDIR review, and I think this provides a reminder of how misuse or alteration within the SR domain of trust can be handled based on RFC8754. Can you please check if this addresses your comment? — Section 8.1 — The presence of SIDs in the IGP do not imply any routing semantics Nit: “does not”, to match the singular subject “the presence”. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. an IPv6 address is solely governed by the, non-SID-related, IGP Nit: remove both commas. [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. not governed neither influenced in any way by a SID advertisement Nit: make it “neither governed nor influenced” [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. build TI-LFA [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] based FRR solutions Nit: there needs to be a hyphen in there, but the citation gets in the way. Make it, “build FRR solutions based on TI-LFA [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]”. [PC] Better. Thanks — Section 8.4 — For example, a BGP-LS advertisement of H.Encaps behavior would describe the capability of node N to perform a H.Encaps behavior, specifically it would describe how many SIDs could be pushed by N without significant performance degradation. This is a comma splice. Split the sentence before “specifically” (and put a comma after “specifically”). [PC] Ack. Fixed for next rev. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
