Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

On 31/10/18 04:15 , Joe Clarke wrote:
> On 10/30/18 08:05, Peter Psenak wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm going to be pedantic here.  According to RFC7770, when a new OSPF
>>> Router
>>> Information LSA TLV is defined, the spec needs to explicitly state if
>>> it's
>>> applicable to OSPFv2, v3, or both.  While you reference the TLVs from
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, I didn't see that either
>>> document
>>> _explicitly_ states that they are applicable to both.
>>
>> ##PP
>> added the following to each of the values:
>>
>> Type: X as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
>> aplicable to OSPFv3.
>
> Thanks.  But s/aplicable/applicable/ :-)

fixed :)


>
>>>
>>> Section 3.2
>>>
>>> "When a router receives multiple overlapping ranges, it MUST
>>>         conform to the procedures defined in
>>>         [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]."
>>>
>>> It would be useful to include a section pointer here.  I think your
>>> referring
>>> to Section 2.3 where the router ignores the range?   Is it likely that
>>> will
>>> change to something other than "ignore?"  If not, maybe it's just worth
>>> mentioning that here.
>>
>> ##PP
>> I don't think it is good to specify the behavior which is described
>> somewhere else. Regarding the section, the
>> ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls is still being worked on and the
>> section may changes. We used the same text in OSPFv2 and ISIS SR drafts.
>> I would like to be consistent here.
>
> I can agree that copying might be problematic.  But I think a section
> ref is good here.  Finding the specific part about "overlapping" in this
> document is kind of like a needle in a haystack.  I think it will add to
> overall readability.

added the section reference.


>
>>> Section 3.3
>>>
>>> "The originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping ranges."
>>>
>>> You specify what a router should do if it receives overlapping ranges
>>> above.  I
>>> think the same text should be used here, too.
>>
>> ##PP
>> Here we say that the originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping
>> ranges. We can not specify what it should do when it breaks the MUST.
>
> I meant you have used text as to what happens when a router receives
> data it should ignore in other parts.  I was asking to use similar text
> here.
>
>>
>> We specify what other routers should do when they receive overlapping
>> ranges and we refer it to spring-segment-routing-mpls draft. Again this
>> is the same as we used in OSPFv3 and ISIS SR extensions. I would like to
>> keep the consistency here.
>
> Right.  But you don't re-reference that text here.  Again, I'm just
> asking for consistent text that references the
> spring-segment-routing-mpls drafts.

got it and updated the text.

thanks,
Peter
>
> Joe
> .
>