Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your review and please check inline for responses.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:27 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2022-09-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-29
> IESG Telechat date: ?
>
> Summary:
>
> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
> review.
>
> Issues:
>
> Major: 0
> Minor: 1
> Nits:  1
>
> 1) NIT: 1 Introduction
>
> IDNITS reports:
>
>     -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
>     'IEEE802.1AX'
>
> As best I can tell there is no need for this reference to be normative.
> (Its only an example in the introduction.) I suggest making this a
> non-normative reference.
>

KT> We kept it as normative since this document is all about "bundle
members" and that refers to the 802.1AX. However, I am ok to change that to
informative if the IESG suggests so.


>
> 2) MINOR: Section 2: Normative requirements on future documents
>
> While I don't fully understand all the document dependencies, the
> following normative requirement:
>
>     ... Specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link
>     TLV MUST indicate their applicability for the L2 Bundle Member
>     Attributes Sub-TLV.  An implementation MUST ignore any sub-TLVs
>     received that are not applicable in the context of the L2 Bundle
>     Member Attribute Sub-TLV.
>
> looks to me like it may be imposing requirements on future work that may
> not itself be aware of or normatively linked to this document.


KT> This is correct.


> The
> registry in question is defined only by RFC7684. Figure 2 further
> supports this point by effectively revising the format for the registry,
> adding an additional column.
>

KT> The intention was not to change the registry format. Please see further
below.


>
> I suggest it would be appropriate to formally update the registry to
> reference this document to impose requirements on future registrations,
> and add a column indicating applicability in the context of the L2
> Bundle Member Attribute Sub-TLV.
>
> The same logic applies to Figure 3 and the IANA OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
> Sub-TLVs registry. I suggest the same sort of fix for it.
>

KT> Your point is valid and this has been discussed with the AD and the WG.
Please check the following threads for those details and how we got to the
current state of the document:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/1MzfiHUq7LlY9VQFhtLR7j9eo2g/

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/UJgcBwSLcbVYPjrp0SicsDcHpj0/

Thanks,
Ketan