Thanks Les. I wondered if that were the case.
Looking again at the draft, the problem then is that section 4.2 of the
subject draft is not a normative definition of an SRMS. It states the
general functionality, and then provides an example of how it would work
in the given scenario.
If the text were enhanced to be an effective normative definition of an
SRMS, then that would also resolve the quesiton of the intended status
of the draft.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/14/18 4:12 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Joel -
I am not an author of this draft - but I am an author on the referenced IS-IS draft - which I assume is one of the drafts mentioned in your comment:
Server). Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as the
defining source for the SRMS.
The IGP document references in the ldp-interop draft are stale. Newer versions of the IGP drafts have been published and they no longer reference draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution - a draft which is no longer active.
HTH
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: spring <spring-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:01 PM
To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop.all@xxxxxxxx;
spring@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
ldp-interop-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues
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-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-05-14
IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC. The
question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed Standards track
RFC is one that the ADs should examine.
Major issues:
This document is quite readable, and quite useful. If my reading below
(minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine.
However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS. Rather, it
describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP integration
and
migration. As such, this seems to me to be a really good Informational
Document.
Minor issues:
Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping
Server). Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as the
defining source for the SRMS. And that document does appear to define
the
SRMS.
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
