Subject: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:08:08 -0400

During my review and while doing the Shepherd writeup for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ I came up with the following comments:

4.3 - Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type:

  - what is the default if not advertised?

6.  Advertising Anycast Property

Should "Locator that is advertised..." be:

  "An SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?

or:

  "A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?

7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV Format

The R fields and their handling, are not defined.

8.  Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs

"must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""?

8.1.  SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV

"Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match

8.2.  SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV

I'm sympathetic to Bruno's comment, and so I think it would be better to say:

Diagram: "System ID (1-6 octets)" and in text:

"6 octets" -> "System ID: 1-6 octets"

I see no reason to mess with this even if the commonly-implemented value is 6 at
this point. IS-IS implementations that only support 6 octets are free to only
support 6 in this sub-TLV as well. They won't be talking with other IS-IS
routers that are configured to have a non-6 octet system ID value. What other
extension RFCs may or may-not do WRT this doesn't really matter I think.

"Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match

11.  Implementation Status

Does this section need a "RFC Ed.: Please Remove prior to publications"? It
seems pretty wrong to document current status of implementations permanently in
an Standards Track RFC.

12. IANA Considerations

An odd space between "sub- TLV".

12.5.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs

This section needs to better conform to registry creation standards (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126).

ID-NITS:

  There are 19 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
  being 5 characters in excess of 72.

References:
  Normative:
    Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header
    Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
    Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
  Informative:
    Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:36:02 +0200

Hi Chris,

thanks for your comments.

Please see inline (##PP):

On 18/09/2020 16:08, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature 
>    - what is the default if not advertised?

##PP
added "or no value is advertised" as for other MSD types.

>    "A prefix/SRv6 Locator that is advertised..."?

##PP
fixed.

> The R fields and their handling, are not defined.

##PP
added

> "must be" "in order to be correctly applied" -> "are" and ""?

##PP
I replaced with:

Certain SRv6 Endpoint behaviors 
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] are associated with a 
particular adjacency.

> "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match

##PP
fixed.

> extension RFCs may or may-not do WRT this doesn't really matter I think.

##PP
I have updated the text to match what is being used in RFC8667, section 
2.2.2

> "Other bits" -> "Reserved bits" -- labels should match

##PP
fixed

> seems pretty wrong to document current status of implementations permanently in

##PP
yes this section will be removed prior to publication. This is a 
standard procedure we follow.

> An odd space between "sub- TLV".

##PP
fixed

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126).

##PP
I updated the IANA section format similar to RFC8667.

>    being 5 characters in excess of 72.

##PP
fixed.

>      Published: RFC 8754 draft-6man-segment-routing-header

##PP
fixed.

>      Out of date reference: [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]

##PP
Whenever the new version of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extension is 
published it picks the latest version, but as these drafts keep changing 
the reference may get out of date quickly.

>      Published: RFC 8402 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

##PP
fixed

thanks,
Peter