Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 20 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection
Deborah Brungard No Objection
(Ben Campbell) No Objection
Alissa Cooper No Objection
Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2018-10-15 for -23)
Thanks for addressing my Discuss point; original ballot comment preserved below. Can SID be expanded on first usage -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt does not list it as "well known". (It also doesn't appear to list "Segment Identifier" as one of the expansions.) This is basically the same thing I said for the IS-IS document that creates the MSD types registry, but I'm not sure I followed correctly the meaning of MSD type 1 for SR-enabled vs. non-SR-enabled networks. In particular, I still don't really understand why it's okay to use the same codepoint for the max SID depth in SR-enabled networks and for the max label depth in non-SR MPLS networks. Why couldn't they just be separate MSD Type codepoints? Section-by-section comments follow. Section 2 If the Node MSD TLV appears in multiple Router Information LSAs that have the same flooding scope, the Node MSD TLV in the Router Information (RI) LSA with the numerically smallest Instance ID MUST be used and subsequent instances of the Node MSD TLV MUST be ignored. [...] Unless there is a sorting requirement I've forgotten about, shouldn't this be "other" rather than "subsequent"? Section 6 Thanks for the updates in response to the secdir review; they help a lot. If the value is larger than supported - instantiation of a path that can't be supported by the head-end (the node performing the SID imposition). This is supposed to mean "(instantiation by the head-end) of a (path that can't be supported)", not "instantiation of a path (that can't be supported by the head-end)", right?