Hi Jeff, Thanks for your response. I would note the same but this is obviously with Chairs and responsible AD's discretion.
Hi Les, Thank you and I am fine here. -- Uma C. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> wrote: > Uma, > > Wrt number of authors, if I recall correctly (I don’t have pointers to the > discussion anymore), given the lengths and involvement of the authors > currently on the front page, as an exception - both ospf and isis sr drafts > would keep the initial number of authors. > > Thanks, > Jeff > > On Jun 11, 2018, at 22:05, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Uma – > > One item I forgot…there are no meaningful nits. > Idnits reports: > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '100' on line 1009 > 'SRGB = [100, 199]...' > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '199' on line 1009 > 'SRGB = [100, 199]...' > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1000' on line 1010 > '[1000, 1099]...' > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1099' on line 1010 > '[1000, 1099]...' > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '500' on line 1011 > '[500, 599]...' > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '599' on line 1011 > '[500, 599]...' > > -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589' > > The fact that idnits looks at everything enclosed in [] as a reference > does not mean the text requires revision. > Idnits also does not allow that a non-RFC document can be a normative > reference – but clearly ISO 10589 is a normative reference. > > > [jeff] indeed, we have used variety of non-RFC documents as normative > references in the past, this should be acceptable in this case. > > > Thanx. > > Les > > > *From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 10:00 PM > *To:* Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; l > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 - Shepherd > review comments > > Uma – > > Thanx for the prompt review. > > I have attached proposed diffs to address some of your comments. > > Additional responses inline. > > > *From:* Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2018 6:27 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; l > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 - Shepherd > review comments > > 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. > > *[Les:] This will be addressed after discussion among the authors – thanx > for the reminder. **J* > > 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. > > *[Les:] The abstract and introduction state “within IGP topologies”. In > that context I believe limiting the protocols mentioned to IGPs is > appropriate.* > > 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. > > *[Les:] I have revised the text in this section – see attached diffs.* > > 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? > > *[Les:] This is a misunderstanding on your part.* > *An anycast prefix may be advertised by multiple nodes, but the Prefix SID > associated with the prefix is the same regardless of which node advertises > it. So there is no contradiction/conflict here.* > > > 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? > > *[Les:] > See > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14#section-2.4 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14#section-2.4> > (emphasis > added):* > > *“ 0 =< I < size. If the index "I" does not satisfy the previous* > * inequality, **then the label cannot be calculated**.”* > > 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. > *[Les:] Added a reference to 2.5 as well. See attached diffs. Thanx.* > > 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. > > *[Les:] When the packet is forwarded over the specified outgoing interface > it will either have an IPv4 encapsulation or an IPv6 encapsulation i.e., > the payload is encapsulated in the afi specific L3 protocol. * > *This does not mean that a new AFI specific header is imposed.* > > 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 > > > *[Les:] The text says:* > *“ where F, B, V, L, S and P flags are defined in 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? > > *[Les:] There is no “preference” here. In order to have algorithm specific > forwarding entries we MUST have different SIDs for each algorithm. A router > will use the SID which matches the algorithm associated with the forwarding > entry.* > > * Les* > > -- > Uma C. > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
