Thanks Acee, it looks the template distorts the comments I produced. I believe it is the tool's problem.
-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2023年5月13日 13:39
收件人: draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; Qin Wu <bill.wu@xxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: lsr <lsr@xxxxxxxx>
主题: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-11 (Reformatted for Readability)
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the Ops review. I reformatted your Email for readability and continued discussion.
Thanks,
Acee
Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review result: Has Issues
I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments.
This document extends Flex-Algorithm that is originally used for SR MPLS and
SRv6 data plane, allowing it to compute paths to IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes. This draft is well written, however I do have a few comments on the latest version before seeing this work being moved forward:
1. Abstract:Is regular IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding related to Native IP data plane,
IP dataplane has been describe once in section 5, but most of other places use
IP forwarding, which lack consistency.
2. Introduction, last paragraph: It looks there are some contradiction here, On
one hand, Flex algorithm can be used independent of data plane technologies
such as SR MPLS, SRv6, Native IPv4/IPv6 On the other hand, it said: Flex
algorithm is tied to SR MPLS or SRv6 data plane technology, lack consistency.
3. Section 3 Do we use specific GTP data plane technology in this 5G use case?
If not the case, is there IGP protocol enabled on both gNodeB and UPF?
GTP/Native IP/ IP network with IGP protocol support Please be more explcit
in the use case section.
4.Section 6.1: Last Paragraph Lack RFC reference for IPv4 Prefix Reachability
TLV and IPv6 Prefix Reachability TLV. Why IPv4 prefix reachability TLV can not
be used toCarry algo prefix reachability related information? Suppose both
IPv4 prefix reachability TLV and IPv4 Algorithm Prefix reachability TLV can
be used to carry the similar information, then the question is when we use
IPv4 Prefix Rechability TLV? When we use IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
TLV? Do we over design for this?
5. Section 6.2: Last two Paragraphs It looks both ISIS SRv6 locator TLV an
ISIS IPv6 algorithm Prefix rechability TLV serve the similar purpose? Why
we should introduce ISIS IPv6 Algorithm Rechability TLV?
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
