Ballot for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 24 and is now closed.
Thanks for explaining the issues I noted in the DISCUSS.
Due to lack of time this week I was only able to review the first half of the document, and so am balloting NoObj in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem / I have no cycles" sense.
Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. Even if I do care about segment routing, and after a quick read of the document, I am in the same boat as Warren Kumari for available time: I am balloting NoObj in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem / I have no cycles" sense. == COMMENT == -- Section 2.4.4.1. -- Out of curiosity, this section seems to imply that a host always has a /128 prefix in IPv6. There are other use case, notably RFC 8273, where a host has a /64. Does it change anything in this document? == NITS == -- introduction -- Suggest to expand IGP & ECMP. -- section 2.4.6 --- Please follow RFC 5952 and use lower case for IPv6 addresses.
Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a small number of minor comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.4: > o 1 octet of RESERVED For the sake of making this byte potentially usable in the future, consider adding text specifying something like "MUST be set to 0 on transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.4.6: > 10.1.1/24, Prefix-SID: Index 51 > 10.1.2/24, Prefix-SID: Index 52 > 10.1.3/24, Prefix-SID: Index 53 > 10.1.4/24, Prefix-SID: Index 54 > 10.1.5/24, Prefix-SID: Index 55 > 10.1.6/24, Prefix-SID: Index 56 > 10.1.7/24, Prefix-SID: Index 57 Please change these addresses to ranges reserved by IANA for documentation purposes rather than those reserved for private use. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.4.6: > 2001:DB8:1/48, Prefix-SID: Index 151 > 2001:DB8:2/48, Prefix-SID: Index 152 > 2001:DB8:3/48, Prefix-SID: Index 153 > 2001:DB8:4/48, Prefix-SID: Index 154 Please change these IPv6 addresses to use lowercase hex digits. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-4.3
— Section 4.4 — As you’re defining a new Expert Review registry, it would help to include some brief guidance for the designated expert (see RFC 8126).
A few comments/questions: 1) For both the Prefix Segment Identifier and the Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV it is not fully clear to me what the value field is used for when the V-Flag is set. Can you further elaborate this in the draft or provide a respective pointer? 2) The F-Flag in Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV and SID/Label Binding TLV is only one bit. I'm not expecting a new version of IP any time soon, however, maybe completely different address families could be useful as well. Not sure if only 1 bit is future-proof...? 3) Would it make sense to also discuss any risk of leaking information (e.g. about the network topology) in the security consideration section?