Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09
review-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09-opsdir-early-hares-2023-08-08-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 09 (document currently at 22) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2023-08-05 | |
| Requested | 2023-07-11 | |
| Requested by | Yingzhen Qu | |
| Authors | Tao He , Zhibo Hu, Huaimo Chen , Mehmet Toy , Chang Cao | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-12-02 (Latest revision 2025-12-02) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -11
by Tal Mizrahi
(diff)
Intdir Early review of -10 by Bob Halley (diff) Secdir Early review of -16 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff) Opsdir Early review of -09 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
| Comments |
Kindly request early reviews of this document, specifically focusing on its consistency and effectiveness in relation to existing mechanisms. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Susan Hares |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/84gRkfYFaqfGj5KpqGwOb7oiKA8 | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 22) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2023-08-08 |
review-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09-opsdir-early-hares-2023-08-08-00
This is an OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-09.
This review should be taken as an early review just as other reviews.
Status: Serious Issues + editorial issues
Why: The text describes mechanisms, ISIS sub-TLVs, OSPF sub-TLVs, and security
issues. Each of these sections has problems that need to be fixed before WG LC.
What should the authors do:
I'll happily work with the authors to correct the text. The text in version 09
does not provide a clear way for interoperable implementations. I will also
review -12 to check if these issues have been resolved.
Mechanisms:
The mechanisms provide steps that are unclear and are not easily aligned with
the example. The mechanism section contains the following: - description of
figure 1 - step 1: a normal path set-up (PEA) - step 2: a backup pat set-up
(PEB)
step 2a: PEB announcement to PEA with PEB
step 2b: PEA processes the announcement and sends forwarding behavior to PEB
step 2c: PEB processes forwarding based on Mirror SID into table
step 2d: processing of anycast that links PEA/PEB to compute LFA with SIDs
- step 3: Steps in fail-over in failure scenario
step 3a: failure detected via BFD
step 3b: send IPv6 packet with an encapsulated packet (H.Encaps) at PL1
step 3c: decapsulate IPv6 packet with End.M (a variant of End.DT6)
- step 4: Handle processing and forwarding a PEB
If these are the correct steps, then the example in section 3.2.
If these are not the correct steps, you confirm the reading is difficult.
Extensions to IS-IS.
The following fields need to be given a range.
Section 4.1
For figure 3 description, please correct the following:
a) length: Please give a valid range.
b) Flags: Normally a reserved value has a default setting (all zeros?) for
transmit,
and ignore upon reception.
c) SRv6 Endpoint Function: Please give valid range.
d) SID: 16 octets (please give valid ranges. For example, is SID 0 valid?)
for Figure 4, please valid ranges for length field.
Section 4.2
For figure 5, please correct the following:
length: Please give the valid range.
flags: Normally a reserved value has a default setting (all zeros?) for
transmit,
and ignore upon reception.
SRv6 Endpoint Function: Please give valid range.
SID: 16 octets (please give valid ranges. For example, is SID 0 v
The Security Considerations section should provide reasons why this mechanism
to provide re-routing does not provide a potential threat. It may work in a
walled garden, but it is not clear there are "no extra security issues."