Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-11-30
Requested 2023-10-31
Requested by Acee Lindem
Authors Chongfeng Xie , Chenhao Ma , Jie Dong , Zhenbin Li
I-D last updated 2023-11-24
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by He Jia (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has issues
Completed 2023-11-24
- General: The term and concept of Enhanced VPN is being discussed in TEAS as
part of the WG last call. I suggest to follow that thread and align the draft
with whatever output will be agreed. - General: i would suggest to change the
title into "Applicability" rather than using. Per my understanding this
document describes how to use existing mechanisms to achieve something new (the
status is correctly informational) - Abstract: "enhanced isolation". i checked
if it was defined in the framework for Enhanced VPNs in TEAS, but i couldn't
find a definition there nor in this draft. What does it mean? - VTN: is this a
new term to identify a set of existing items? E.g. an ACTN VN, NRP, a set of
RSVP-TE tunnel, a topology built with flex algo...are they cases of VTN or the
VTN is a different thing? - Intro: s/than that can be provided/than the ones
that can be provided - "Another possible approach is to create a set of
point-to-point paths, each with a set of network resources reserved along the
path, such paths are called Virtual Transport Path (VTP)". In what is this
different from an ACTN VN member? See RFC 8453. - Introduction: "In some
network scenarios, the required number of VTNs could be small, and it is
assumed that each VTN is associated with an independent topology and has a set
of dedicated or shared network resources. This document describes a simplified
mechanism to build SR based VTNs in those scenarios." I don't understand, is
there the need for a specific mechanisms (different from existing ones) only
for particular cases in which the number of VTNs is small (smaller than other
scenarios)? - Section 3.1 "The usage of other TE attributes in
topology-specific TLVs is for further study." The draft is pretty simple and
small, can't the usage of other TE attributes be described here as well?