Re: [Idr] "Final" revision : draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Uma,

[Alvaro: What would you like us to do with these late-breaking comments?]

> 1. Section 3.2.1.4 - BGP-LS Identifier:
>      "The ASN, BGP Router-ID tuple (which is globally unique
>       [RFC6286] ) of one of the BGP-LS speakers within the flooding-set
>       (or IGP domain) may be used for all BGP-LS speakers in that
>       flooding-set (or IGP domain)."
> 
>       Would suggest "may be used" to "MAY be used"
>
>       Perhaps this has been discussed earlier, but RFC 6286 requirement is
"unique"
>       with in AS, which fits well for  a router-ID but the LS-Identifier being
talked
>       about has to be "same" with the IGP flooding domain.
>       So to me, actually I am not really sure why we should add this statement
at all.

I think I agree that 
      All BGP-LS speakers
      within an IGP flooding-set (set of IGP nodes within which an LSP/
      LSA is flooded) MUST use the same ASN, BGP-LS ID tuple.
makes 
     The ASN, BGP Router-ID tuple (which is globally unique
      [RFC6286] ) of one of the BGP-LS speakers within the flooding-set
      (or IGP domain) may be used for all BGP-LS speakers in that
      flooding-set (or IGP domain).
redundant. I suspect it is old text that was better stated by new text inserted
above.

It is not wrong, but could safely be deleted.

> Typo?:
> 
> 2.  Section 3.3.3:
>      "   Prefixes are learned from the IGP topology (IS-IS or OSPF) with a set
>    of IGP attributes (such as metric, route tags, etc.) that MUST be
>    reflected into the BGP-LS attribute with a link NLRI."
> 
> 
>     ".. attribute with a link NLRI" ==> ".. attribute with a prefix NLRI"

Yes, I think that is right.
 
> Nit:
> 3. Section 3.1:
> 
>    "of the
>    string. .  All TLVs that are not specified as mandatory are
>    considered optional."

Shock! ;-)

Thanks,
Adrian