[CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 07 May 2014 21:54 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 164D51A03B7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 rqOR8om5waLM for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B4F971A0257 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28505 invoked by uid 0); 7 May 2014 21:53:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 7 May 2014 21:53:50 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id z9tZ1n00S2SSUrH019tcnD; Wed, 07 May 2014 15:53:50 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EOmVjTpC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=0n_1n4a9CTgA:10 a=YsrfA5SUEYcA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=MGRxyiorQo4A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=EIv9BKRZKx1pkf5HHdIA:9 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:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=0i0cJLWQ2Ty/ttHWeaSZ56wLJTmX/QrZMbgm4OEq/O0=; b=Q65Y6iwZpt3+KWE3Rc6xxIYCul4Ho/xCEZfN049KCZr5y4+QlnfKAX/84ed5pcYqPFipG7jMho8xi6NCjw0mSxEuULLmInd2r3zBaHpNdOEZG4jQKhvHv8qZF5xtAmDH;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:55867 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Wi9mP-00055I-9s; Wed, 07 May 2014 15:53:33 -0600
Message-ID: <536AAB57.2090403@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 17:53:27 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/MvcgM2BVldmwwcherCY-5VkuVks
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04
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: Wed, 07 May 2014 21:54:02 -0000
Hi, Here are some primarily editorial suggested changes to / comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04. Please use/respond as you see appropriate. - The draft has a bunch of idnits issues which need to be fixed see http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04.txt (I'll use line numbers from this URL below.) - I suggest, in the whole document s/head/ingress s/tail/egress - Section 3 title: "RSVP-TE Extensions (Encoding)" The whole document is an RSVP-TE Extensions, so this isn't a very useful section heading. How about just calling the "Encodings" - Section 3.2 - Each field should have its length defined - The reserved field needs to be defined Section 4.1 - lines 179-181: Typically, the head node gets the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO which contains the sender's IP addresses in the Path message. - Given this is defined in RFC209, how about: Per RFC 3209, an ingress initiates the recording of the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path message. - There are places where the section is light on 2119 language: - line 181: s/it sets/it MUST set - line 182: s/which can be carried/which MAY be carried - lines 183/4: Given you are describing specific cases, s/if/when in the following: either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object if the collection is - drop "is" in "... Collection Flag is set" (lines 188 and 196) - you use "should not" in lower case in a few spots in this section. While I think your usage *is* correct, my experience is that someone (probably in the IESG) will tell you that these need to be in upper case at some point. Of course, they'll be wrong, and this will have to be explained. I suggest avoiding 2119 language in lower case where easily avoided. How about s/should not be/is not to be - Line 200: " the SRLG sub-object(s) in the Path RRO." How about "any SRLG sub-object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message." - Line 202: s/If/When the Collection Flag is set and - Line 203/4: OLD processing node SHOULD add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the local SRLG information. NEW processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below, to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. - Line 208: s/forwarding/processing - line 210: OLD node can get the SRLG information from the RRO NEW node receives SRLG information in the RRO - Lines 212-215 - this needs to be rephrased into language with which an implementation may conform. How about something like: Per RFC 3209, when issuing a Resv message for a Path message which contains an RRO an egress node initiates the RRO process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The processing for RROs contain in Resv messages then mirrors that of the Path messages. - Line 224: s/must not/MUST NOT - Lines 225-7 OLD Otherwise, if local policy allows to provide the SRLG information, it MUST add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the SRLG information in the upstream direction. New When local policy allows recording SRLG information, the node SHOULD add SRLG information, as defined below, to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Resv message. - Lines 246-250. I don't think such informative text belongs in this section. I also think it's redundant with the last paragraph of section 1 so suggest dropping it altogether. - The section is missing handling of RRO to big. Perhaps add it at ~line 330. Section 4.2 - Line 260: s/need not/SHOULD NOT Section 4.3 Compatibility (?) - Need a section covering what happens when an existing implementation sees a flag or SO defined in this document. (Remember, you can't specify their behavior, just say what they should be expected to do based on current RFCs and the objects defined in this document.) - Section 5 The section doesn't cover the possibility of SRLGs being mapped/changed from/to internal to/from neighbor SRLG values. - Section 6 Section 5 implies there is a policy decision to be made at border nodes. It seems to me that the security related considerations of this policy decision should be covered in the document. Either in this section or in section 5, in which case this section should point to that discussion. - Section 9 The references need to be split into informative and normative references. For example, all but the first two references look informative to me. That's it, Lou
- [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS
- [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS
- Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)