Hi Dhruv,
please see inline (##PP):
On 12/09/2019 12:06, Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues
Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
Hello
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/
The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.
As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my
comments along with the other working group last call comments.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Document: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review Date: 12-09-2019
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.
The draft is focused and straightforward, the reader needs to be aware of
RFC6790 and draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label beforehand. I have reviewed
this and the OSPF I-D together and you will find similar comments for both I-Ds.
Minor
*****
(1) Could you mark that the codepoints mentioned in the draft are early
allocated by IANA? Currently it says the value are desired. I also suggest
following change in Section 7 (IANA Considerations) -
OLD:
IANA is requested to allocate the E-bit (bit position 3 is desired)
from the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry.
IANA is requested to allocate a MSD type (the type code of 2 is
desired) from the "IGP MSD Types" registry for ERLD.
NEW:
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the E-bit (Bit
position 3) in the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV"
registry.
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the ERLD (type
code of 2) in the "IGP MSD Types" registry.
END
##PP
I'm not sure above is necessary, given that the above text would change
eventually to simply say which code points have been allocated.
(2) Section 3 talks about ERLD in Node MSD sub-TLV. But what happens if one
receives ERLD in the Link MSD sub-TLV? As per my understanding this is not
allowed, better to add normative text for the case then.
##PP
added a sentence
Also we have this text in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label -
In a distributed switching architecture, each linecard may have a
different capability in terms of ERLD. For simplicity, an
implementation MAY use the minimum ERLD of all linecards as the ERLD
value for the system.
There may also be a case where a router has a fast switching path
(handled by an ASIC or network processor) and a slow switching path
(handled by a CPU) with a different ERLD for each switching path.
Again, for simplicity's sake, an implementation MAY use the minimum
ERLD as the ERLD value for the system.
The drawback of using a single ERLD for a system lower than the
capability of one or more specific component is that it may increase
the number of ELI/ELs inserted. This leads to an increase of the
label stack size and may have an impact on the capability of the
ingress node to push this label stack.
If we are deviating from this and opting for the node (marked 'MAY' above) as
the only possibility, we need to handle this properly. Maybe check with
chairs/AD on this!
##PP
A remote router introducing the EL may not always know the LC/interface
over which the traffic he sends is received on the remote node. So I
don't really see much of the value advertising ERLD per link.
Sure, chairs/AD will have their chance during the review :)
(3) Section 4, can we add some more description on what the 'E' flags means, in
the similar style of other flags
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1]
##PP
done
(4) Section 8, suggest to also add one sentence for the impact of advertising
incorrect ERLD. If there isn't any, that can also be stated.
##PP
done
Nits
****
(1) Suggested ordering of sections - ..ELC/ERLD/BGP-LS/ACK.. [matching between
OSPF/ISIS]
##PP
done
(2) Section 2, add [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] for
terminology reference
##PP
done
(3) Section 3, Add reference to
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label for the definition and usage of ERLD
The Introduction section has:
"This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
Depth (ERLD) as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] "
(4)
Section 6,
The ERLD MSD-type introduced for IS-IS in Section 3 is advertised
using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute as
defined in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
I think you mean draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd here!
##PP
right, corrected it.
Also, maybe change the title "BGP-LS Extension" as there is no 'extension'
required, ELC/ERLD is BGP-LS would be automatically supported.
##PP
renamed to "Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS".
(5) Expand MSD on first use.
##PP
done.
(6) The first figure is titled Figure 2!
##PP
fixed
(7) Section 4, mark the figure as "Prefix Attribute Flags"
##PP
done
(8) All references are marked Normative, please re-check if this is intentional.
##PP
done.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks!
Dhruv
