[Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 28 November 2018 21:01 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 179B2130E27; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 tdNkXF71bnrK; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x236.google.com (mail-oi1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::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 734FE1274D0; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x236.google.com with SMTP id j21so23856392oii.8; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PLrdRpiJRjLicG+mVjeU0o6i2QBYjacRhEJe12111LI=; b=D7bFiChf44KtHS3U5c1Jb2w3BqnNglrgDqMzaHy+jiDk7J4drJ53MKjlJwWKj+2yLN Th6gV0sEPd4wdUB4tLkkDYhrHwhjLmAe6ukahv7kyKF/IMpS38CezkpTdTLKblFci9/L uIFHzOHviAjIi6kf4oZLwaYRyx+QCqUAmq6CV3drSCh0S4DWU5VOBjSgSqyOgiSmDMGB FWE4Xs6h5H91hTT3KSPDIZC//1/BCw9Jw+RkdpNutfPk6jL86+AlBlhL2Eibq4uuyabm NkHHV1myVMX3GhlNuHeW5yS6QQknnBoM8UkDakcx9kB0XDjA8SIbkv8no5I4tkdC7kRc g6Yg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PLrdRpiJRjLicG+mVjeU0o6i2QBYjacRhEJe12111LI=; b=gvV+DKvbvBfBDRifjjd7DJ6QEIY3WLGqkYEiyCVSTtL97ZkKKtOGGbCw+QzjtfSq9s NazOuEZByUKBOIns8BtAL59K7BR71EJHVSRT8oiROdzf53qU0rcdjFquf7PI7Vr976SL QQCgTuiBpZ9Wngrul4GyASk93VDlGG5r6vLRRsSDUH3iz58T1QqPdZ3FZvj3Gp1Wcb7X gBf83XgLpZRp2KBjB07rgc5/Td2bMCerkunjQ95hwZzpnYqK0FAVGn/ItkbjAQRA7mc2 QFTQo9kWjiROCSMlGXBkG+4NQpnpYYzF8G6EgYkGBzr7tmVwz+9Egv1asG2uJmIpqBHq Blew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKUqOMg33ArhAjdBhNMzrFUKKnoylUe8TsJOnKHlq8YyLRk88c1 mKxNnFEhbJlOVLmANxKbO8Xv7B7UWsgrSMZKgeCyMw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5f9K2mBQrd4fPqZYV5ukgJaDrTomkDhWa2QW6cw7/4TmqZrKDzr9LGthUqRCNZQiXAYOvXOjI4ElllyHUG0/tE=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:a881:: with SMTP id r123mr22356068oie.207.1543438890857; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:29 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (528)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:01:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyXWjVrCMG83HUUmMrSNzUvPvdRE6PSa7OAmOJgNtzMpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d27979057bbfdece"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uMucYwPkjIBPM0ksK0dPhL9O9IU>
Subject: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:01:38 -0000
Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Please see the comments in-line below. I found only one significant issue with the definition of Available Bandwidth (see my comment in §3.6). This issue, along with my other comments (mostly nits), should be easy to address. I am then starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. [Note: the line numbers come from idnits.] ... 17 Abstract 19 This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP 20 Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols. [nit] s/defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols/defined in the IS-IS and OSPF protocols 22 Requirements Language 24 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 25 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 26 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 27 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 28 capitals, as shown here. [major] No Normative language is used -- which is not a bad thing. Please remove the boilerplate text and the appropriate references. ... 90 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions 92 The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: 94 TLV Name 95 ------------------------------------------ 96 Unidirectional Link Delay 98 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 100 Unidirectional Delay Variation 102 Unidirectional Link Loss 104 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 106 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 108 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization [nit] This is weird seemingly-stub section. Consider renaming §3 "Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions", moving the contents there and turning the list above into a table including the new TLV types... 110 3. TLV Details 112 3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 114 This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly 115 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is 116 described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. [nit] s/semantic/semantics [minor nit] In rfc7810, the Type and Length fields are 1-byte each...so in reality rfc7810/rfc7471 describe the semantics of the Value field (not the whole TLV). Maybe some short text in §3 about the TLV format following the specification in rfc7752 would help. ... 220 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV 222 This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly 223 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is 224 described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. 226 0 1 2 3 227 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 229 | Type | Length | 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 231 | Available Bandwidth | 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [major] AFAICT, Available Bandwidth is the only definition that is different between rfc7810/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis and rfc7471. The difference comes from the correction made to address this report [1]. Instead of trying to fix the definition here, I think that a similar report should be filed against rfc7471. Please submit it and I will approve. [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486 ... 284 5. IANA Considerations 286 This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- 287 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 288 TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below: 290 TLV code-point Value 291 -------------------------------------------------------- 292 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 294 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 296 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 298 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 300 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 302 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 304 1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization [major] This document doesn't request the assignments, but IANA has done the early allocation... Please correct. ... 325 8.1. Normative References ... 332 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 333 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 334 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 335 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. [minor] I think this can be an Informative reference: just like rfc4272 and rfc6952 are. ... 348 [RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and 349 Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", 350 RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016, 351 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>. [major] Please use draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis as the reference.
- [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14 Alvaro Retana
- [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: … John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … John E Drake
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … John E Drake
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14 Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: … Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14 Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)