Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14

From: Ahmed Bashandy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 15:41:59 -0700

Thanks a lot for the comments

I uploaded version 15 of the draft on Oct/23

See my response to your comments "#Ahmed"

On 6/13/18 2:32 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> Dear authors,
>
> I’ve read the document and have one minor comment and 3 
> editorials/nits, see below. As a general comment from a non-native 
> speaker I’d suggest a review by a native speaker (noting that one of 
> the authors is a native speaker). I went through that with some of the 
> informational rfcs I’ve edited and I think it helps to improve 
> readability of a standards track rfc.
>
> I appreciate, that the tie-break section is part of the draft. I admit 
> that I hardly can judge whether that is the right way of doing things. 
> Here I rely on the judgement of the authors and contributors.
>
> Related to contents, I think the editor & authors did a good job and 
> the draft is ready for publication.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ruediger
>
> Comments:
>
> Section 2.4
>
>    Local segments MAY be allocated from the Segment Routing Local Block
>
>    (SRLB) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] or from any unused label as
>
>    long as it does not use a reserved label. The SRLB consists of the
>
>    range of local labels reserved by the node for certain local
>
>    segments.
>
> Would that read better, if the SRLB is defined before label allocation 
> is specified, i.e., switch sentences:
>
>    The SRLB consists of the
>
>    range of local labels reserved by the node for certain local
>
>    segments. Local segments MAY be allocated from the Segment Routing 
> Local Block
>
>    (SRLB) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] or from any unused label as
>
>    long as it does not use a reserved label.
>
#Ahmed:
I have changed the wording of this paragraph based on comments from 
others. I hope the new wording is good
>
> #################
>
> 2.6. Outgoing Label Collision
>
> 2^nd section
>
> the ingress node may not have exactly have the
>
>    same data
>
> Delete the second “have”.
>
#Ahmed:
Done
>
> ##################
>
> 3.1. Example 1
>
> Last para, last sentence
>
> The ECMP-awareness ensures that the traffic be load-shared between any 
> ECMP
>
>    path, in this case the two north and south links between R2 and R3.
>
> R2 has two links to R2 and R3, one of which is the north link, while 
> the other is the south link. Suggest to rewrite to:
>
> …ECMP path, in this case the two links between R2 and R3.
>
#Ahmed:
Version 15 of the draft uses this wording (thanks). Just be aware that 
all examples have been moved to appendix
>
> Or
>
> …ECMP path, in this case the north and south links between R2 and R3.
>
> ###################
>
> 3.2. Example 2
>
> Suppose the right most router R0 wants…..
>
> R0 is the leftmost router
>
#Ahmed:
We got rid  of example 2 based on received comments
>
> ####################
>
> *Von:*spring [mailto:[email-masked]] *Im Auftrag von 
> [email-masked]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2018 18:52
> *An:* SPRING WG List <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Betreff:* Re: [spring] WG Last Call for 
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13
>
> Hi all,
>
> A quick update on the status of this WGLC:
>
> - All the authors have responded about IPR (thank you!). Still missing 
> replies from some contributors (Wim, Edward, Igor, Saku). I’ve sent 
> them a reminder this Monday.
>
> - Two people (Zafar, Adrian) have responded supporting publication.
>
> - No opposition.
>
> - Two persons have sent comments (Adrian, myself). Thanks Adrian.
>
> - Authors have not replied to any comment so far.
>
> - The WGLC period was scheduled to end tomorrow.
>
> I wish we had more support, reviews, and authors’ involvement to reply 
> to reviews.
>
> The WGLC is extended by a week. Please review the document and send 
> your comments to the list, no later than **June 15**
>
> Thank you,
>
> --Bruno
>
> *From:[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>[mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:14 PM
> *To:* SPRING WG List
> *Cc:* [email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13
>
> Hello Working Group,
> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on 
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13 [1] which is considered 
> mature and ready for a final working group review.
> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version 
> yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *June 08*.
> As a reminder, this document had already passed a WGLC more than a 
> year ago on version -06 [2], had been sent to the AD but then returned 
> to the WG.
> Since then, the document has significantly changed, so please read it 
> again. In particular, it now includes the resolution in case of 
> incoming label collision. Hence it killed 
> draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution.
> Both co-chairs co-author this document, hence:
> - Shraddha has agreed to be the document shepherd... Thank you Shraddha.
> - Martin, our AD, has agreed to evaluate the WG consensus.
> Thank you,
> Bruno, Rob
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13
> [2] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/STiYsQJWuVXA1C9hK4BiUnyMu7Y
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez 
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les 
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, 
> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have 
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez 
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les 
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, 
> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have 
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring