Re: [Idr] Suggestion to use a more generic name for Topology-Type and ISP-sub-TLV in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-05

["Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linda,

I agree with this, the Route Type field is placed in front of the field, which is more suitable for common usage.

Regards,
Haibo

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:06 AM
To: Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>; Shengcheng <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Suggestion to use a more generic name for Topology-Type and ISP-sub-TLV in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-05


Shunwan,

Do you mean changing the Section 6.1 SDWAN NLRI from:

+------------------+
|   NLRI Length    | 1 octet
+------------------+
|    Type          | 2 Octet
+------------------+
|   Port-Local-ID  | 4 octets
+------------------+
|SDWAN-Site-Color  | 4 octets
+------------------+
|  SDWAN-Node-ID   | 4 or 16 octets
+------------------+

To:
+------------------+
|SDWAN Route Type  | 2 octet
+------------------+
|   NLRI Length    | 1 Octet
+------------------+
|   Port-Local-ID  | 4 octets
+------------------+
|SDWAN-Site-Color  | 4 octets
+------------------+
|  SDWAN-Node-ID   | 4 or 16 octets
+------------------+
?

If we don't hear any objections, we can.

Linda

From: Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:54 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Shengcheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Suggestion to use a more generic name for Topology-Type and ISP-sub-TLV in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-05

Hi Linda,

Changing "Topology-Type" field in SDWAN-SAFI NLRI to "Route Type or NLRI Type" is a good suggestion.
And would it be better to put this field in the first field of the SDWAN-SAFI NLRI?

Thanks,
Shunwan

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:19 PM
To: Shengcheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Suggestion to use a more generic name for Topology-Type and ISP-sub-TLV in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-05

Victo,

Thank you very much for the comments and the suggestions.
See my reply inserted below:

Thanks, Linda

From: Shengcheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 3:08 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Suggestion to use a more generic name for Topology-Type and ISP-sub-TLV in draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-05

Dear authors,

I have two comments:


1.      Section 6.1 (NLRI for SDWAN Underlay Tunnel Update) has a two octets field called "Topology-Type".  We think it is better to use a more generic name for this type to make it easier for future expansion.  We think using a generic type, such as "NLRI Type" or "Route-Type" is much better than the "Topology-Type".
[Linda] That is a good suggestion. RFC9015 (BGP for SFC) uses "Route Type" field to indicate different types of encoding carried in the NLRI. Maybe we can follow the tradition.
If we don't hear any objections, we will change the field name to "Route Type".


2.      The ISP-sub-TLV in the Section 6.4(Extended Port Attribute Sub-TLV)  is used for future expansion. We think it is better to change the name to a generic one, such as Transport-sub-TLV.
[Linda] good suggestion. "ISP-sub-TLV" was meant to carry information about the underlay network characteristics, such as bandwidth, access types, etc. Again, if we don't hear any objections, we can change the field name to "Transport -subTLV.



Thank you for the consideration.


Regards
Victo Sheng