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

[Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>]

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/ :-)

>>
>> 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.

>> 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.

Joe