Dear Authors, I have done shepherd review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 document as requested by LSR chairs. First, I would like to thank all the the authors and contributors on this document. I have few minor comments below and would be great if authors take a look at these.
===== A. I see few ID nits (comments and warnings). Please fix those. B. For the record: (as this would come up soon) : Currently there are 8 front page authors and please indicate why this document should be given exception w.r.t 5 co-authors norm, that is being followed in general. 1. Abstract & Section 1 a. "These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF)." I see more than LSR protocols e.g. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-07 Also not sure if this statement is necessary. Please either correct or remove this. b. "Two types of segments are defined, Prefix segments and Adjacency segments." This document defines more than these two if you include Section 2.4 (SID/Label Binding TLV). Section 2 is much better where all types in this document are described as well as [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] is referred for other types. In that sense the above statement looks incomplete/repetitive. 2. Section 2.1 a. "The 'Prefix SID' MUST be unique within a given IGP domain (when the L-flag is not set)." I see this is conflicting with what's been defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-14, section 3.3 - "Within an anycast group, all routers in an SR domain MUST advertise the same prefix with the same SID value." If you see otherwise please explain why? b. "A 4 octet index defining.." What happens to the computed label value if the index is of 4 octets value? I am asking this as index can have 4 octets but the eventual label (SRGB offset + index) would be only 20 bits. Can you point (if any) references to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls appropriate sections - is this is addressed there? c. "A Prefix-SID sub-TLV is associated to a prefix advertised by a node and MAY be present in any of the following TLVs:" Nit: Perhaps the list should include Section 2.5 too. 3. Section 2.2.1 a. "F-Flag: Address-Family flag..." Not sure why this has to do with encapsulation? What happens if native IPv4/IPv6 data packet is using this SID with out any encapsulation? Could you please clarify. 4. Section 2.2.2 a. Nit: V and L flags: Content is duplicated and perhaps it can instead refer to section 2.2.1 5. Section 3.2 and Section 2.1 Could you please clarify what is preferred if multiple prefix-sids with different algorithm values are advertised for the same SID value? -- Uma C.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
