Thanks for the update, a couple issues remain. [ ] 7.1 and 8.1
The reserved bits for "SRv6 Locator TLV" and "SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV" are defined differently (and probably incorrectly) than the other reserved bits. Reserved bits "MUST" be set to zero, not "SHOULD", I believe. [ ] 11. Implementation Status I know you mentioned that the section should be removed, but how about adding a note to the editor in the next revision e.g., "RFC Ed.: Please remove this section prior to publication"? [ ] 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). In particular there is no guidance. It looks like there is more discussion from Joel on this draft, so I will hold off on submission for that to resolve. Thanks, Chris. > On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Peter Psenak > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > thanks for your comments. > > Please see inline (##PP): > > On 18/09/2020 16:08, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote: >> 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? > > ##PP > added "or no value is advertised" as for other MSD types. > >> 6. Advertising Anycast Property >> Should "Locator that is advertised..." be: >> "An SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."? >> or: >> "A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."? > > ##PP > fixed. > >> 7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV Format >> The R fields and their handling, are not defined. > > ##PP > added > > >> 8. Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs >> "must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""? > > ##PP > I replaced with: > > Certain SRv6 Endpoint behaviors [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] > are associated with a particular adjacency. > > >> 8.1. SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV >> "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match > > ##PP > fixed. > >> 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. > > ##PP > I have updated the text to match what is being used in RFC8667, section 2.2.2 > > >> "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match > > ##PP > fixed > >> 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. > > ##PP > yes this section will be removed prior to publication. This is a standard > procedure we follow. > >> 12. IANA Considerations >> An odd space between "sub- TLV". > > ##PP > fixed > >> 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). > > ##PP > I updated the IANA section format similar to RFC8667. > > >> ID-NITS: >> There are 19 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one >> being 5 characters in excess of 72. > > ##PP > fixed. > >> References: >> Normative: >> Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header > > ##PP > fixed. > > >> Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] >> Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] > > ##PP > Whenever the new version of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extension is published > it picks the latest version, but as these drafts keep changing the reference > may get out of date quickly. > > > >> Informative: >> Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing > > ##PP > fixed > > thanks, > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
