Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 08 August 2016 21:02 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9CB12D098; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 vnN13ykznQ0L; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A32D12B027; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9546; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470690143; x=1471899743; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=aRAlUnmAKOS5QXZtOo9B4mfRGDoDxdKGKv2mhjiYqR0=; b=OhR6D3qzduUuQ6xF360rqryQT3XJPdtNjkNlLX9DcZh1lMeLTEFMI7rH GTm5+Oeaeenjov9FLe/gclq9IWIBhs+IjuprcMAVxeL7t2UOPluJnryvV GoySVts2RGsyj6vS2sOo2hhx7Xcra8gsRGMkYg0OucD8RDWLvFwZleS/c g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ABAgAr8qhX/4sNJK1XBoNFVnwHrGyMKIF9JIV5AhyBJDgUAQEBAQEBAV0nhF8BBSMRQBUCAQgUBAICJgICAh8RFRACBAESiBcDFw6yZ4tfDYQuAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBH4EBiXaBekmBbw4XgmqCWgWIJZBgNAGGHIYygjuBa06EDYdegR+GZIFJhAeDdwEeNoISHIFMbgGGX38BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,491,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="308338591"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Aug 2016 21:02:22 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u78L2MeK019928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Aug 2016 21:02:22 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:02:19 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:02:19 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05
Thread-Index: AQHR8Ex8YwoNATto6UeHCLvPFj8HLqA/WTcAgABtZAD//8kMgA==
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:02:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D3CE6B15.768D6%acee@cisco.com>
References: <4ee8e895-a939-d747-a82f-fb7c8696b36e@gmail.com> <D3CE3687.7666E%acee@cisco.com> <7b3e0da4-2cf9-d91d-d179-1d6179c0f9b3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b3e0da4-2cf9-d91d-d179-1d6179c0f9b3@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8D03AFE518A1F14997AE8E736132A188@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/yihLL0Aa7lwYQE66gMxupGMjK9Q>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:02:26 -0000
Hi Brian, See one inline. On 8/8/16, 4:18 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Acee, > >Thanks, just a few points in line: > >On 09/08/2016 05:47, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thanks much for the thorough review. Jeffrey and I discussed your >>comments >> this morning. See responses to your major/minor comments below. We will >> incorporate all the nits. >> >> On 8/6/16, 9:38 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> >> 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 >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05.txt >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review Date: 2016-08-07 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-15 >>> IESG Telechat date: >>> >>> Summary: Almost ready >>> -------- >>> >>> Major issues: >>> ------------- >>> >>>> Updates: 2328, 5340 (if approved) >>> >>> If that is so, the text needs to explain what is changed in those two >>> RFCs. Since >>> this draft describes an "optional extension" to OSPF, it does not >>> obviously update >>> them. Is any text in those two RFCs made invalid by this draft? >> >> This has been an ongoing debate as to whether an RFC the augments an >> existing draft updates it or whether it must actually change the >>existing >> behavior. In this case, the SPF calculation is modified as specified in >> section 3.6 but only when the new Network-to-Router metric is >>advertised. >> In RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, this cost is always zero (i.e., cost to reach >> all routers connected to the network is solely the outgoing metric >>metric >> or Router-to-Network metric). > >OK, fair comment. > >> >> I, for one, would be very happy to have consensus of precisely what >> constitutes update to an existing RFC. > >So would many people, and since it affects all RFC streams, not just the >IETF stream, I happen to know that the RFC Editor is working on >definitions >for both "updates" and "obsoletes". > >> If we don’t update the existing >> RFCs, we would avoid the pre-2008 IPR language. > >That doesn't seem right. You only need that language if you are updating >whole chunks of older text. If you take a paragraph from a pre-2008 >document, >change a few words, and patch it into the new document, you need either >the agreement of the original authors or the pre-2008 disclaimer. But I >don't think you're doing that in this case, are you? No. We are simply using the context of the existing SPF calculation to describe the additional function. Thanks, Acee > >>>> 3.6. SPF Calculation >>>> >>>> During the first stage of shortest-path tree calculation for an >>>>area, >>>> when a vertex V corresponding to a Network-LSA is added to the >>>> shortest-path tree and its adjacent vertex W (joined by a link in >>>>V's >>>> corresponding Network LSA), the cost from V to W, which is W's >>>> network-to-router cost, is determined as follows: >>> >>> I can't parse that sentence. If we delete the subordinate clauses, we >>>get >>> >>> When a vertex V is added to the shortest-path tree and its adjacent >>> vertex W, >>> the cost from V to W is determined as follows: >>> >>> What does that mean? What does "its" refer to? Is W adjacent to V, or >>>is >>> W adjacent >>> to the existing tree? Is W added to the tree before V, or is V added >>> before W? >>> If I was coding this, I'd have no idea what to do. >> >> You really do have to look at RFC 2328 to understand it. > >Yes, I did that in some detail when I was teaching routing a few years >ago ;-) > >> Does this >> modified text parse better? >> >> The first stage of the shortest-path tree calculation is described >> in section 16.1 of [RFC 2328] and modified for OSPFv3 as described >>in >> section 4.8.1 of [RFC 5340]. When a vertex V corresponding to a >> Network-LSA >> has just been added to the Shortest Path Tree (SPT) and an adjacent >> vertex W >> (joined by a link in V’s corresponding Network-LSA) is being added >>to >> the SPT, the cost from V to W (W’s network-to-router cost) is >> determined >> as follows: > >MUCH better. It also clarifies the "Updates:" aspect. > >Thanks > Brian > >> >>> >>>> 3.7. Backward Compatibility >>> >>> This calls for a Router Functional Capability Bit assignment under RFC >>> 7770. >>> The bit number should be given as (say) TBD1 not as 0. >>> >>>> 4. IANA Considerations >>> >>> The IANA considerations ask for four assignments. These should be >>> specified as TBD1, >>> TBD2, TBD3, TBD4 and the TBDs elsewhere in the text should be updated >>> correspondingly. >>> Also, please reference the relevant RFCs (7770 and whatever defines the >>> Sub-TLV registries.) >> >> 3.7 and 4 are both fixed in -06 based on comments from Alia. >> >>> >>> Finally, to put this on the standards track, I would really expect to >>>see >>> an Implementation Status section (RFC 7942). Has this been tested? >> >> The implementation of this stalled. However, it is viewed by the WG as >> straight-forward enough to advance. >> >> >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> ------------- >>> >>> Please check the three occurrences of lower-case "must" in Section 3. >>> Should they be "MUST"? >>> >>>> 5. Security Considerations >>>> >>>> This document does not introduce new security risks. >>> >>> That's easy to say but hard to prove. Shouldn't you at least refer to >>>the >>> security >>> considerations of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3? >> >> We will add the reference. >> >>> >>> Also, does section 3.7 introduce a new risk whereby a rogue router >>>could >>> flap its >>> Two-Part Metric bit on and off, causing all its OSPF peers to >>>continually >>> recalculate >>> their routes? >> >> This is no more of a risk than other intra-area metric change. >> >> Thanks, >> Jeffrey and Acee >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Nits: >>> ----- >>> >>>> Requirements Language >>> >>> It's unusual to put this at the front. The normal place is after the >>> Introduction. >>> >>>> This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF >>>> Contributions published or made publicly available before November >>>> 10, 2008. ... >>> >>> Why is this needed? What did you copy from an old document? >>> >>>> 0 OSPF Two-part Metric [TPM] >>> >>> The abbreviation TPM is defined but not used, so why bother? Also, >>> s/[TPM]/(TPM)/ to >>> avoid confusion with a reference. >>> >>>> routes w/o considering any network-to-router costs. >>> >>> Just say "without". >> >
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Brian E Carpenter