Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11

Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.sethi=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:29:21 +0000

HI Acee,
On 4/24/20 3:38 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

Hi Mohit,

Speaking as document shepherd. See inline. 

On 4/24/20, 3:39 AM, "Mohit Sethi via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
    Review result: Ready with Nits

    I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
    Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
    by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
    like any other last call comments.

    For more information, please see the FAQ at

    <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

    Document: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11
    Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
    Review Date: 2020-04-24
    IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-05
    IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

    Summary: This document specifies how Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and Entropy
    Readable Label Depth (ERLD) are advertised using IS-IS. For advertising ELC, a
    flag in the Prefix Attribute Flags is used. For advertising ERLD, a Node MSD
    Advertisement is used.

    Major issues:

    Minor issues: The document is short and straightforward. For someone like me
    who is not familiar with the routing area, would it make sense to explain why
    signalling ELC information with MPLS is not sufficient (or what are the
    benefits of advertising with IS-IS)?

I guess I'm wondering what you mean "signaling ELC information with MPLS"? With segment routing, the IGPs can be the only choice for signaling ELC capability. I don’t believe this comment requires any action. 

I hope that you don't expect a gen-art reviewer to be an expert on every topic. I certainly am NOT on expert on routing. I interpreted the following text in the draft:

It also
   introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
   the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.

to imply that signaling ELC information with MPLS is possible but this draft defines a mechanism for signaling the same information with IS-IS. Maybe the need for this is very obvious for those in the routing domain in which case ignoring my comment is perfectly
 fine. 

--Mohit

Thanks,
Acee

    Nits/editorial comments:

    In section 3, "used as the ECL  Flag" should perhaps be "used as the ELC Flag"?
    In section 4, "IANA for EARLD-MSD" should perhaps be "IANA for ERLD-MSD"?
    In section 6, "ECL Flag (E-flag)." should perhaps be "ELC Flag (E-flag)."?

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call