[Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13

Tim Chown via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 15 February 2021 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93373A0D55; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Tim Chown via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161340670871.11578.4839224279059815588@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Tim Chown <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:31:48 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FQi6nfAO8RlFUIPMY70AvfAkwhY>
Subject: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:31:49 -0000

Reviewer: Tim Chown
Review result: Has Nits

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended
administrative groups (EAGs) to allow it to support administrative groups of
size greater than 32 bits (apparently multiples of 32 bits).

The document is easy to follow, well-written, and Ready for publication with
Nits.

Nits:

Abstract:

The abstract doesn’t actually say what this draft defines.
Add at the end of the current abstract paragraph something like “This document
defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended administrative
groups (EAGs) to allow it to support administrative groups of size greater than
32 bits.”

Section 1:

The BGP-LS advertisement is encoded -> The BGP-LS advertisement for the
originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded (Adds
clarity)

Section 2:

Extensions -> an extension (?)

EAG of a -> The EAG of a

must MUST be -> MUST be a

Given the stipulation of the length being a multiple of 4, perhaps make it
clear elsewhere that (if I understand correctly) the EAGs have masks that are
multiples of 32 bits (or are they implemented as multiple 32 bit masks?)

AG TLV 108 -> EAG LV 1108   (I assume?)

existing AG -> originally defined  (again, clarity?)

When referring to backward compatibility in RFC 7308 perhaps add that Section
2.3.1 says how to handle that if both an AG and EAG are advertised, the first
32 bits of the EAG MUST be identical to the advertised 32 bit AG.  (Just a
suggestion, but probably an important point to reinforce?)

Section 3:

Assigning code-point -> assigning a code point

--
Tim