Re: [Idr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 13 December 2018 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 902FE130E09; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:13:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 9aLGFv0-jnfg; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDF0A1200B3; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:13:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1544724784; x=1545934384; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=GRjND30bhu2MakvCIJm9QcfIpxfBBIFQIb04Zq758oY=; b=jBgjnfZXBE1qUmPmq2eYEqhXGFYTI6AFPZ/PdgFGiXsD1pXEzGYyu5YI 9ye/au/EhsiSxAHfFMCAD/VMqFexTQCzR3H/6PX3nW1IiIma3T0GlVRZZ hcm0BFr2ElkXLKHFa3WzhUF4OI7jzptKlx0a/bHdaFZy5snqpuIGXfYln E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAAC8oBJc/4ENJK1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggOBaCcKg3KIGYwTgg2DRZQPgXoLAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?EbAIXgmwiNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtKIU8AQEBAQIBIxFFBQcEAgEIEQQBAQMCJgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAjAVCAgCBAENBQiFEgioXoEvijSBC4sxF4FAP4EQgxOFJ4JeglcCiWuWT1U?= =?us-ascii?q?JApFPIIFchRyKUokuj3QCERSBJx84gVZwFTuCbJBbQTGMKoEfAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,349,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="495320008"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Dec 2018 18:13:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wBDID3Qq013184 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:13:03 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:13:02 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:13:02 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@wide.ad.jp>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
Thread-Index: AQHUksLyuDnkgtzxkU+dPru28q4P+6V85B4w
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:13:02 +0000
Message-ID: <d07090284c9f46f48c5d479297b4a865@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <154469190410.2732.7123292408392294701@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154469190410.2732.7123292408392294701@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.104.232]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/w8V87anL5U5yyr4k_wCbkquKAvM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:13:07 -0000

Yoshi -

Thanx for the review.
Replies inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@wide.ad.jp>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 1:05 AM
> To: tsv-art@ietf.org
> Cc: idr@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
> 
> Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
> IETF
> discussion list for information.
> 
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
> 
> Summary: Ready with Nits
> 
> 1: The TLV formats in the draft look identical with RFC7471 except the value in
> Type field.
>      it would be better to clarify this points so that the readers who are
>      familiar with RFC7471 can interpret them easily. I am also wondering if
>      the format figures of TLV are necessary when the same figures are already
>      presented in RFC7471.
> 

[Les:] The draft says:

Section 2

" TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]."

Then in each subsequent sub-section 2.x  both RFC 7471 and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis are explicitly referenced.

The TLV formats need to be presented here since these are the BGP-LS encodings, which are similar to but NOT identical to the IGP specific encodings (for example IS-IS encoding uses an 8-bit type/length).

> 2: There is no guidance for default values such as measurement interval in
> the
> draft. If these values should also be inherited from other draft, it should be
> stated.
> 
[Les:] This is not within the purview of this draft. All this draft is doing is defining the encodings for the BGP-LS advertisements which are essentially copies of what the IGPs are advertising.

> 3: (Editorial) The length of Type filed in the figures look 15 bits length.
> But, I believe it should be 16 bits.
> 

[Les:] Indeed. Good catch. I will fix this.

   Les