Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline.
> On Oct 4, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jen,
>
> I support publication.
>
> Few comments
> - Introduction ends abruptly for my taste. Perhaps a few lines that state the
> purpose of the document would help.
I can add the following text to the end of the introduction. Let me know if
this works
NEW:
This document explores the characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and to clarify the
relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291].
> - Do we need to add some text on what happens if the address block assigned
> by IANA is not used in the received IPv6 packet?
> - This text "This would be useful in identifying and potentially filtering
> packets at the edges of the SR Domains as described in Section 4.1.". But
> section 4.1 of this I-D does not have any text for this! Do you mean some
> other document?
This is in reference to the following text in 4.1
" In this case, to allow the SR domain to fail closed, some form of filtering
based on the LOC part of the SRv6 SID is required as relying purely on the
presence of an SRH will not be sufficient.”
Please let me know if I can clarify this further.
> Nits
> - remove references from abstract
Will do.
>
> Further, see inline...
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 1:30 PM Jen Linkova <furr...@gmail.com
> <mailto:furr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This email starts the 6man Working Group Last Call for the "Segment
> Identifiers in SRv6" draft
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids>).
>
> The WGLC ends on Tue, Oct 4, 23:59:59 UTC.
>
> As the document is closely related to the work in the SPRING WG, we'd
> like the SPRING WG to review the document and discuss the following
> questions:
>
> - the action items required from SPRING (Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the
> draft,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4>)
> [*]. Would it make sense to merge those open issues with the 'Open
> Issues' section of
> the SPRING document?
>
> Yes!
Great.
>
>
> - whether the document needs more guidance regarding routability of
> /16 or such requirements shall belong to some other document? In
> particular, shall we specify that it MUST NOT be in the DFZ? Or
> setting 'Globally Reachable = false' in the registry should be
> sufficient? The current idea is that the prefix needs to fail closed
> and not be routable by default.
>
>
> I agree that some more guidance would be useful.
Sounds good. Will work on some text for this.
Regards
Suresh
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
