Hi Sandy, I am still unable to understand your point. Is it possible for you to please explain with an example?
Thanks, Ketan On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 9:57 PM <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > Thank you for the coming update! > For the second comment, from section 6.1.1 of RFC9252, > ‘When using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length *MUST* be > less than or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the AL.’ > If I understand right, the sentence means that the Transposition length > can be 24 or less. > I am wondering the verification should be yes or no when the > transportation length isn’t the same but the label value is. > So IMO it may be simpler to limit the transportation length to 24 bits. > Best regards, > Sandy > > > > Original > *From:*KetanTalaulikar<ketant.i...@gmail.com> > *To:*张征00007940; > *Cc:*rtg-...@ietf.org;bess<bess@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args....@ietf.org; > *Date:*2025-02-27 21:36:43 > *Subject:**Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-05* > Hi Sandy, > > Thanks for your review. Please check inline below for responses. > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 6:56 PM Zheng Zhang via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Zheng Zhang >> Review result: Ready >> >> Hello, >> >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ >> >> Document: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-05 >> Reviewer: Zheng (Sandy) Zhang >> Review Date: Feb 27th, 2025 >> Intended Status: Standards Track >> >> Summary: >> This draft is well written and clear. >> No issues found. This document is ready for publication. >> >> Major issues: None. >> Nits: None. >> >> Comments: >> The functionality defined in this document also applies to the >> transposition >> scheme defined in RFC9252. It might be better to add a reference to >> RFC9252 >> Section 4 in the last paragraph of the first section. > > > KT> We also got the very same feedback from the Genart review ( > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/l1I-NBJB3XzRe8Z0HLuQWpR7nzY/) > and we'll add that in the next update. > > > >> Since this draft applies >> to route types 1 and 3, and the associated label is 3 octets, it is >> appropriate >> to only apply 24 bits here to the transposition scheme. So it would be >> best to >> add a sentence or two to the above. >> > > KT> This is already covered by RFC9252 - e.g., > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9252.html#section-6.1.1 ... do let me > know if I am missing something. > > Thanks, > Ketan > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
