[Idr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not a DISCUSS-level concern, but I found it odd that the Node MSD TLV
must be the minimum of all configured interfaces without regard for the
presence of any Link MSD TLVs.

For example, if all node interfaces have an MSD of 20 except one with an MSD of
10, it would be much more compact to advertise a Node MSD of 20 and a single
Link MSD of 10. Section 5 says the Link MSD would take precedence, so there
would be no information loss. As I understand the spec, this would not be
allowed, and each link would have to be advertised separately to gain that
level of granularity.

If this is not the intent, then in Section 3, extending a sentence to say "Node
MSD is the smallest MSD supported by the node on the set of interfaces
configured for use, [excepting links advertised with their own Link MSD TLV]"
would avoid the problem.