Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 April 2021 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1813A347A; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 444fbvLFuMFV; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EFB13A3478; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id r20so3618963ejo.11; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4zG7TqclH9MYIfMYS+FVfhuYiA8/JN3Xid0rP08DF+A=; b=YetAWupxi/CPGqTz+VfaHbI0PyAa2VgCqXgr0ruLPVqKM4iDlQnPNc6kJiDDGP7k2x LTUx/zE4kvd4gomdYOhqy+za9pMVJ2c8w2qceloHlMzJh2ivSDs+ZzZ9ZMLAH4HTy6Yt EtqLH5isbTSwqijDQFpRNKcDqVdsug3MT3o34YPsqpwhsWJobekQEac2u2URJuLkhvZD 3+0IElNVWMAu4SASjh0r7sZ8Ib1yyS8hxHBYKETS9U3lg6IezcWZVVbDB4W4bKJ/c5NE wQWHcodHgU4EJtXKVQZUDP4aL7CgHNcL2q5J0AJhwf5Z8TA9yPCqtwNrednnI46UANfo Y79g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4zG7TqclH9MYIfMYS+FVfhuYiA8/JN3Xid0rP08DF+A=; b=TiLZN5looni3Og8WwOEfYgIUr71cDMhBz162NsHWAx0d1xbS7Z7f7RHE29dIgZ4ub+ 10D/uipgLBZQAomMYGk+3dQt7xoH0vqFchHA83SL+kPFqkA+XiX3buZAbJ+nV1EnpAIr dofFNroHEJioxS/XMLlgw7YGZrHk6xYsUW0vGr6UaG12jJJSdm/IaefFmHIt7wPQv7LA HGTUo6NozFAsv0QjrI+VOaeuwO5tM9Kh65X/ZGef5JMnlg67R+rOinqGC9lX1w/+TLZr m9qPS/LDRe0ANTkOnp1lDs15njmD7IfziY3lCBhL1UmOGFTbjrVeYeo2Rm68+FZ4nsBh lxEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vLTHmjzBB4dB+oJ/RQsUU4CGa5OmbZpXK967PFHtq9k2E/ON3 2aUqajninqhhJLPVxlRunaCqZbxHszAZVz7EB83TuzD0QEsl2g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtBG4isOs1mKbkjCHd1T0Tc1sTEnmVl2tHqEPMfq54VPOMY2Rk9IWTdtmCf9ltdPFqtHZiIqo6BtPLv/T/5vw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2d89:: with SMTP id gt9mr6847776ejc.122.1618844269767; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:49 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7c725fa0-52ec-4713-98e3-9bd83d4cb8e3@Spark>
References: <CAMMESsy7QcDch_iPwou6sEHLWGoFUAir=TprfsoZ_T-yuipcBg@mail.gmail.com> <7c725fa0-52ec-4713-98e3-9bd83d4cb8e3@Spark>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:57:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESswiDQQPvTb=mHMvmaBi5b9QzLHM7xgMnRfP+N5Sd=8qMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr-chairs@ietf.org, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Os339CwUz6iicWqOzSINKHbLFjs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 19 Apr 2021 14:57:59 -0000

On April 18, 2021 at 7:47:22 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:


Jeff:

Hi!

Just a couple of points -- one major.  I'm starting the IETF Last Call.

Thanks!

Alvaro.



...
> > 70 1. Introduction
> >
> > 72 Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link
> > 73 colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state
> > 74 protocols like IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329]
> > 75 for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement of the
> > 76 originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded
> > 77 using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in
> > 78 [RFC7752].
> >
> > [minor] "IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329]"
> > These references should point at the protocols themselves, not the TE
> > extensions. Also, these references can be Informative.
>
> [jeff] ack, changed
> [jeff] Alvaro - this is the text from 7308, that specifically calls out TE
> documents -
> "This document defines the Extended Administrative Group (EAG) sub-TLVfor
> both OSPF [RFC3630] and IS-IS [RFC5305].” ?

The text refers to the protocols ("protocols like...").  It's ok if
you want to change the text slightly to the TE extensions.



...
> > 133 o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the
> > 134 administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when
> > 135 those specific bits are set.
> >
> > [major] rfc7308 talks about an "Extended Admin Group" (singular!), and
> > not a set of groups. This TLV is then not in line with rfc7308.
> >
> > The whole document should be checked for (editorial) compliance with
> > the concept of a single EAG.
> >
> [jeff] ack, i believe now it reads correct

I may be wrong, but rfc7308 and the encoding on this document give the
impression that you only carry one EAG, not "one or more sets".  Did I
miss something?  If multiple EAGs can be carried I think there's an
extra length missing: the TLV only has the total length, not the
length of each EAG.