Re: [Idr] AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 29 September 2015 14:35 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B096D1B428A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 QoAVYYN728tx for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (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 7FAA91B4286 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbda8 with SMTP id da8so6921717obb.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=6IRcPU+EdbBU0ZQ3T9+1GqGXvji3oXhBgWrt8VUxD6k=; b=iMnt+1br2o/2qKamtl6igCZN0QHUH6+uCWX6mzqK2kuZE25SaHxDlOPNllaNFROkIF lOc5xw2KJMOk4PhH2xKFtXKh6XCZKl51R13G9aD1kGG/iLCe+WT9ZICZ3udKqoBpkuzd IoHoJ8RPmJ27F6rBOlWW/Dl/HYxcgVGGxB3WJeUUmZZzBA4K2MJsQuHe/WdokcyorkBR NnjtpqQQUPoaL3Pd2IfhoT5/5m3YADXNpsoYfhHYWKe9fs3bAwzrx5U8umQL/WEGZ3UX oXmBv5MO8BiJPjPHgkqKlv1eZfCcKHHIteBXrziLHxym5n0bxpla2EY36JuM61RpckY3 SuEg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.160.37 with SMTP id xh5mr964540oeb.61.1443537324819; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.55.170 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdb=EDRpKrtGNkLKgkLwNTx-v5VGe7MGpF1ig-8Tkri9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdb=EDRpKrtGNkLKgkLwNTx-v5VGe7MGpF1ig-8Tkri9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:35:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rczgTaRKRLkWL-XFGwENQUf4v_6vi=5ETYYtOkT21BMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution@tools.ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e010d8dc4774a290520e3b920"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwghoiw2FqCNvfTX0-lDDOVFJhQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:35:28 -0000
It has been about 6 months since I did my review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10 and I don't see the comments addressed in draft-ietf-ls-distribution-11. Of course, Alvaro is now the responsible AD for IDR - and may have his own comments as well. It's very sad when a draft is held up for this long due to editors' not responding. None of my comments were blocking issues, which is why I was willing to run the IETF Last Call in parallel, but I did and do expect a response. Regards, Alia On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: > As is customary upon receiving a publication request, I have done my AD > review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution. First, thanks for the hard work > on this very useful and non-trivial specification. Second, I have found a > number of clarifications and issues that I would like to see resolved in > the draft. > > I will start an IETF Last Call so that you can get additional comments in > parallel. Because of the upcoming IETF, I expect this to run longer - > ending April 8. > > > 1) In Sec 3.2, 3rd paragraph last sentence, it says: > "This is done as specified in [RFC4760], by using capability code 1 > (multi-protocol BGP), with an AFI 16388 / SAFI 71 and AFI 16388 / SAFI > TBD for the VPN flavor." Could you please turn this into non-colloquial > language with clear requirements language? Can one support "the VPN > flavor" but not the regular? > > 2) On p. 9, the Route Distinguisher is introduced and its length is > included - but no reference is given nor length specified. Could you > please provide both? > > 3) In Sec 3.2.1, second paragraph, it says "We use Autonomous System (AS) > Number and BGP-LS Identifier (Paragraph 2) in order to disambiguate the > Router-IDs, as described in Section 3.2.1.1." > I suspect that "Paragraph 2" is intended to refer to the last paragraph on > p. 11 - but that isn't a clear way to reference it; also the Identifier is > not referred to as a "BGP-LS Identifier" but merely an Identifier. Also, > instead of "we" perhaps "BGP-LS". > > 4) In Sec 3.2.2, I see that link descriptors are actually only a > unidirectional representation. Could you please mention this when the link > NLRI is introduced? > > 5) In the NLRI format, I see a 64 bit identifier. From the discussion > (last paragraph in p. 11), it looks like this 64-bit identifier is intended > to be the 5-bit "Routing Universe Identifier" which is supposed to indicate > the protocol plus routing instance??? > > 5) In Sec 3.2.1.4: I see the OSPF Area-ID listed. How are IS-IS levels > handled? I see the Node Attribute TLV (1027) but this seems to require > that a link would have to have its remote and local nodes looked up to find > the associated IS-IS Area Identifier. What would be actually really useful > is to describe, in the introduction, the different handling for IS-IS and > OSPF in the encapsulations and why they differ. > > 6) In Sec 3.2.2 3rd from last paragraph: Can both IPv4 AND IPv6 > addresses both be included in the link descriptor? Presumably the same > logic that prevents the link local/remote identifiers from being included > would apply? Also, why are the neighbor addresses included for the Link > Descriptor when the remote node's descriptor should already be in the > Remote Node Descriptor? > > 7) In Sec 3.2.3.1: It says "The OSPF Route Type field values are defined > in the OSPF protocol, and can be one of the following". Could you please > add a reference to which version of OSPF and what field you are > describing? I suspect it is the LSA types and they are different values > between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. This section could benefit from some clarity. > > 8) In Sec 3.3.1.2: Please add a reference and describe what an "Area > Identifier (variable)" is. > > 9) Sec 3.3.1.5: I like the idea of this - but an example or two in terms > of encoding/parsing would be useful. You have a couple pointers - but it > could use another level of explanation. > > 10) Sec 3.3.2.2: I am not clear what the rationale for deciding what > protocols to include here is. For instance, is mLDP considered a different > protocol or a subset of LDP? I would like to see a short paragraph > discussing how this information might be used or what criteria would be > applied to decide if another protocol should be added. 8 bits is a pretty > small space... > > 11) Sec 3.3.2.3: " If a source protocol (e.g. IS-IS) does not support a > Metric width of 32 bits then the high order octet MUST be set to zero." > Surely you mean that if the source protocol supports a metric width shorter > than 32 bits, then the metric is placed in the bottom of the word and the > high order bits from the supported metric width to 32 MUST be set to 0. As > written, it assumes that any source protocol that doesn't support 32 bits > of metric must support exactly 24 bits. > > 12) Sec 3.3.2.5: Please correct the sentence that claims "Note that > there is no SRLG TLV in OSPF-TE". A simple browsing in the IANA registry ( > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.xhtml#subtlv2 > ) clearly shows it defined: > 16Shared Risk Link Group (variable)[RFC4203 > <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc4203>] > 13) Sec 3.3.3.1: How large are the bit fields that are mashed together > from IS-IS and OSPF to form the IGP Flags TLV? Can you please add some > guidance on when new flags should be allocated? > > 14) Sec 3.3.3.2 and Sec 3.3.3.3: Please add a reference for OSPF TAGs. draft-acee-ospf-admin-tags-01 > seems to be the corresponding one. I think that the reference can be > Informational. > > 15) Sec 3.3.3.4: The reference to RFC5305 is, I presume to Section 4. > That would be useful to clarify since it isn't easy to find. Similarly, > where does the information come from in OSPF? Could you please add a > reference? > > 16) Sec 3.5: Can you please provide more guidance here around what > Protocol-ID to use for inter-AS links - particularly if they are not in the > IGP? Are there any issues around the Protocol-ID implying the format for > data that an inter-AS link might have? > > 17) Sec 5 IANA Considerations: There are several fields (i.e. MPLS > protocols, IGP Flags, etc) that are not included in the IANA > Considerations. The authors and document shepherd should go through and > describe how each field that is not managed by IANA would have additional > values added - or whether that isn't expected and why. > > 18) Sec 6.2.1: I assume that by "does not mandate", the authors mean > "we're not doing it now"? It's clearly absurd and ludicrous to think that > BGP-LS wouldn't need some type of extensions - whether that is > topology-related YANG models or something else. Please figure out what you > want to say other than "someone else's problem" and put it in here. > > Thanks again for the hard work so far, > Alia > >
- [Idr] AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution Alia Atlas
- Re: [Idr] AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distributi… Alia Atlas
- [Idr] FW: AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distributi… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distributi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Idr] AD Review: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distributi… Jan Medved (jmedved)