Subject: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:05:56 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

Thank you to Christian Hopps for his shepherd's write-up (including the WG
consensus).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2 --
Any reason why the bits of the 'Flags' field are not reserved (except for the
O-bit) ?  or be in a to-be-created IANA registry? I would expect the default
value for sending them (usually 0) and what to do on the receiving side(s) when
the value is not 0 (usually ignore them). E.g., see the section 7.1

-- Section 3 --
Isn't it obvious that the "Segment Routing Algorithm" is also supported by SRv6
routers ? Consider removing this section ? If you prefer to keep it, then
please use the wording "Segment Routing Algorithm" exactly as in the IANA
registry.

-- Section 7.1 (also 7.2 and possibly others) --
The header 'Length' should not be defined as 'variable' as it is probably a
fixed length of 1 octet. Specifying how it is measured and in which units
(octets, 32-bit word, ...) is probably welcome.

-- Section 7.2 --
What is the default value of the "Flags" field?

== NITS ==

-- title-
Should the plural form be used for 'extension' ?

-- Section 1 --
s\topology/algorithm specific\topology/algorithm-specific\ ?

-- Section 13 --
While there is a rather long contributors list, there is no acknowledgement
section. The latter is of course optional but usual. Should the doc shepherd or
last call reviewers be acknowledged ?

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 13:38:39 +0200

Hi Eric,

thanks for comments, please see inline (##PP):

On 18/05/2021 18:05, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> O-bit) ?  

##PP
sure, marked them as Reserved

> or be in a to-be-created IANA registry? 

##PP
there is a registry defined for these bits in section 11.7

> I would expect the default

##PP
yes, this has been commented by others and I have added the statement 
similar to 7.1 already.

> please use the wording "Segment Routing Algorithm" exactly as in the IANA

##PP
I prefer to keep it to make it clear that the SRv6 algo participation is 
using the same signaling as SR MPLS. That may not be that obvious as it 
may look like.

Corrected the sub-TLV name to match IANA.

> (octets, 32-bit word, ...) is probably welcome.

##PP
with "variable" we refer to the value of the Length's field, not it's 
length. We use this in many ISIS RFCs (e.g. RFC8667, section 2.2.2.)

> What is the default value of the "Flags" field?

##PP

I added:

"All bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be  set to zero on 
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt."

> Should the plural form be used for 'extension' ?

##PP
sure, changed to plural.

> s\topology/algorithm specific\topology/algorithm-specific\ ?

##PP
done

> section. The latter is of course optional but usual. Should the doc 	 or

##PP
sure, added it.

thanks,
Peter

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
>

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 12:38:50 +0000

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your quick reply and addressing my non-blocking COMMENTs.

You may want to have a look at EV> below (again non blocking)

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 13:39
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Eric,

    ##PP

    ##PP

EV> may I suggest to add a reference to the IANA registry already in this section ?

    ##PP

    ##PP

EV> you may want to state that SRv6 uses the same signaling as SR MPLS (even by one more sentence)

    ##PP

EV> Honestly, history mistakes do not need to be repeated ;-)

    ##PP

    I added:

    ##PP
    sure, changed to plural.

    ##PP
    done

    ##PP
    sure, added it.

    thanks,
    Peter