Re: [Last-Call] [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

["Chongfeng Xie" <chongfeng.xie@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jia,

Thanks for the review comments.

I see your major comment is about the terminology alignment, as replied to Daniele, we will follow the decision in TEAS to update the terminologies in next revision.

Please see some replies to the minor issues inline:

 

From: He Jia via Datatracker

Date: 2023-12-11 16:09

To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx

CC: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all; last-call; lsr

Subject: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

Reviewer: He Jia

Review result: Not Ready

 

Hello,

 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The

Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as

they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special

request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would

be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call

comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by

updating the draft.

 

Document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

Reviewer: Jia He

Review Date: December 10, 2023

IETF LC End Date: date-if-known

Intended Status: Informational

 

Summary:

I have read the review comments from Daniele about the concept of enhanced VPN,

and the relationship with other existing terms. I agree with his suggestion to

follow the discussion and align the draft with the output. In addition, some

minor issues and also nits are found out as follows and should be considered

prior to publication.

 

Minor Issues:

1、In Section 1, it is said "Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be used to represent

both the topological instructions and the set of network resources allocated by

network nodes to a VTN." Is it "allocated by network nodes" or "allocated to

network nodes"? If it is "network resources allocated by network nodes", why

not "allocated by centralized controllers" as well? If it is "network resources

allocated to network nodes" which are assocated with a VTN, why not " allocated

to network links" as well? Is there any special consideration by saying

"network nodes" only here?

[Chongfeng]： The description is a little bit confusing, actually it should be "network resources of the network nodes and links which are allocated to a VTN/NRP". We will update it in next revision.

 

2、In Section 4, "For SRv6 data plane, the SRv6 SIDs associated with the same

VTN can be used together to build SRv6 paths with the topological and resource

constraints of the VTN taken into consideration." Is "SRv6 Locator" missing?

[Chongfeng] SRv6 Locator is the covering prefix part of the SRv6 SIDs. In SRv6 segment list, the SRv6 SIDs are used to indicate the forwarding path and the set of resources used for packet processing. So the description is correct.

 

Nits:

1、Section 2, TLV 223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) is defined in RFC 5311, which

is not referenced in the draft. 2、Section 1,  Paragraph 3, last sentence,

s/...need to be distributed using control plane/...need to be distributed using

a control plane 3、Section 2, Paragraph 1, last sentecne, s/MT-ID could be used

as the identifier of VTN in control plane./MT-ID could be used as the

identifier of VTN in the control plane. 4、Section 2, "IS-IS Multi-Topology

[RFC5120]" and "IS-IS Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) [RFC5120]" are both used in

the draft. It is suggested to keep consistent throughout the draft.

[Chongfeng] Thanks for catching the nits, we will resolve them in next revision.

Best regards,

Chongfeng

 

 

_______________________________________________

Lsr mailing list

Lsr@xxxxxxxx

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

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