IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-05

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 04 December 2014 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97791A86E6 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:40:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0tvg8d_9hR3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 486BB1A86E4 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23722 invoked by uid 0); 4 Dec 2014 22:40:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2014 22:40:06 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id Pafx1p00K2SSUrH01ag0yD; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:40:06 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=dfgTgxne c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=u9EReRu7m0cA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=A92cGCtB03wA:10 a=MtFyE43K51MjRo7ecw0A:9 a=VFiKvjaywqe0QD3B:21 a=Dt-owCV6JEpBA8Kz:21 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Ph3Mf8HzpwfpGJkTdGjNTKWghMVNZx3mnxHcm24/SOI=; b=jtkvGb4/AOeLdyAPb2c9o3CBan4SGsxtsIs99KWP9PbKbdHZS/ztcePGetVT2cIh1srRUFE+6v7HEGzECrFu4/f/kLcs85gXFcWGHWlt2vmwVRmJBDWKneXqsxTKZilg;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:60014 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Xwf41-00054a-5G; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:39:57 -0700
Message-ID: <5480E2D3.8070404@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:40:19 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ccamp@ietf.org
References: <546F49D6.3000305@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <546F49D6.3000305@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/DiFzftD4idEairRPcx0G2EYmweE
Cc: "<draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-05
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:40:10 -0000

> ... 
> This working group last call ends on Friday December 5th. Please send your
> comments to the CCAMP mailing list.
>  ...
Hi,

I have some minor/not level comments on the draft:

> 2. Requirements

Based on the contents and length of this section, perhaps rename this to
"1.x Overview"

I also think the language in this section is a bit rough and it would be
good for it to be cleaned up a bit.  Let me know if you need
suggestions, and I can provide off line.  

- Section 3 defines the "ERO Attributes subobject" and
"ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject".  Why the different/inconsistent names? 
Also why the object style name?  How about using "ERO Hop Attributes
subobject"?   Obviously, this should be a global change. -- My remaining
comments will need to be modified to s/xRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE/xRO Hop Attributes

- s/3. Specifying Hop Attribute/3. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject

- Doesn't the L bit need to be 0?  This should be added as a "MUST",
perhaps to section 3.1.

- Last paragraph in section 3.3: what about when the (ingress or
transit) processing node *originates* such a subobject?

- Section 4 has parallel naming issues:
s/4. Recording Hop attribute/4.  RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
s/RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE/RRO Hop Attributes/g

- Drop text redundant with RFC3209:
   Length  The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
      bytes, including the Type and Length fields.  The Length MUST be
      always divisible by 4.
- Section 4.2.1
s/RRO attribute/RRO Attributes

- In section 4.2.3
s/RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE/RRO Hop Attributes subobject
s/the RRO Attributes/the RRO Attributes subobject
s/LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, a node / LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node

- What is a LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLV? Do you mean the existing "LSP Attributes
TLVs" carried in the existing attribute objects?  If yes, this line is
counter to the previous line and should be dropped.  If not, what is
this referring to?

-s/LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, if/LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, when
- For "include the LSP_ATTRIBUTE" do you mean "report the attributes"?
- s/use the RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE/use the RRO Hop Attributes subobject
- s/RRO Attributes/RRO Attributes subobject

-Section 5.1, 5.2
Why include "ERO" in the IANA assigned subobject name?  This isn't the norm.

- section 5.3

It would be best to present this in table form to match what is in the
registry.

I think that's it,

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email