[Resending in case this got lost in the email problems.]
Thank you Shraddha. In line, marked <jmh></jmh>
Yours,
Joel
On 5/8/2024 4:54 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thank you for the careful review and comments.
Pls see inline <SH> for responses.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 10:37 PM
To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx;
mpls@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-15
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AhctNGPPaKLQ_H79A9RESTF3a29btJzh4iO8NHGpWZzqq9EuPQTv9jm2O_41fO-qR1mCgCzII3RUBXYp$
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-name-version
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D
Summary:
I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the
Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors.
Comments:
I was very pleased with the clarity and readability of the document.
It lays out the space it is working in, and explains what it does and
how very well.
Major Issues:
I have significant concern with the structure of the TLVs in two regards.
First, the PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV (assigned tbd1 in section 4, defined in
section 4.1) uses a single code point for IPv4 and IPv6 and differentiates
by length. Other sub-TLVs for MPLS ping and traceroute use different code
points for IPv4 and IPv6. Second, all of the sub-TLVs defined in section 4
have length codes. Looking at RFC 8029, sub-TLVs are defined with fixed
lengths and do not have length codes embedded in them. While one can argue
that this is a bad practice, it is the practice, and RFC 8287 follows that
practice. It would seem this document should do so as well.
<SH> The definition of PeerAdjSID was referenced from IGP Adj SID FEC
definition from
Sec 5.3 of RFC 8287. This uses sigle code point for IPv4/IPv6
addresses. Similar approach is
Used in PeerAdjSID definition to keep it consistent. Let me know what
you think.
<jmh>From where I sit, given that these sub-TLVs are part of the MPLS
PING and Traceroute protocol, alignment with that protocol is more
important than aligning with the wire encoding BGP uses. After all, the
comparison process inside the router can easily convert between the two
representations. In the end whether to leave this as is or align with
the rest of the MPLS traceroute and ping protocol is up to the MPLS WG
chairs and the responsible AD.
If the WG already discussed this, pointers to that discussion would seem
helpful to those responsible for deciding.
</jmh>
Minor Issues:
It would be helpful if the document directly referenced RFC 8029 and said
that 8029 is where the TLVs that can carry these sub-TLVs is defined. That
should be a normative reference.
<SH> RFC 8029 is already under normative reference. I'll add text
explaining
RFC 8029 defines main TLVs where these sub-TLVs are carried. Thanks
for pointing out.
<jmh>Thank you.</jmh>
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
