During my review and while doing the Shepherd writeup for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ I came up with the following comments:
4.3 - Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type: - what is the default if not advertised? 6. Advertising Anycast Property Should "Locator that is advertised..." be: "An SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."? or: "A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."? 7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV Format The R fields and their handling, are not defined. 8. Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs "must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""? 8.1. SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match 8.2. SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV I'm sympathetic to Bruno's comment, and so I think it would be better to say: Diagram: "System ID (1-6 octets)" and in text: "6 octets" -> "System ID: 1-6 octets" I see no reason to mess with this even if the commonly-implemented value is 6 at this point. IS-IS implementations that only support 6 octets are free to only support 6 in this sub-TLV as well. They won't be talking with other IS-IS routers that are configured to have a non-6 octet system ID value. What other extension RFCs may or may-not do WRT this doesn't really matter I think. "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match 11. Implementation Status Does this section need a "RFC Ed.: Please Remove prior to publications"? It seems pretty wrong to document current status of implementations permanently in an Standards Track RFC. 12. IANA Considerations An odd space between "sub- TLV". 12.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs This section needs to better conform to registry creation standards (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126). ID-NITS: There are 19 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 5 characters in excess of 72. References: Normative: Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] Informative: Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
