Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Dhruv for the review... 

Peter and other authors, 
Please include Dhruv's comments or respond as to why they are being omitted. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 9/12/19, 6:12 AM, "Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
    Review result: Has Issues
    
    Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09
    
    Hello
    
    I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
    ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
    
    The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
    an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
    IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
    as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
    stage that the document has reached.
    
    As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
    determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my
    comments along with the other working group last call comments.
    
    For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
    ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
    
    Document: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09
    Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
    Review Date: 12-09-2019
    Intended Status: Standards Track
    
    Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
    resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.
    
    The draft is focused and straightforward, the reader needs to be aware of
    RFC6790 and draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label beforehand. I have reviewed
    this and the IS-IS I-D together and you will find similar comments for both
    I-Ds.
    
    Minor
    *****
    
    (1) Please use updated requirement language text as per RFC 8174, as you do
    have a mix of upper-case and lower-case terms in your I-D.
    
          The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
          NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
          "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
          described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
          appear in all capitals, as shown here.
    
    (2) Could you mark that the codepoints mentioned in the draft are early
    allocated by IANA? This would make it clear that you are not squatting on them.
    I also suggest following change in Section 7 (IANA Considerations) -
    
    OLD:
       This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv2
       Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry:
    
          0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
    
       This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv3
       Prefix Options registry:
    
          0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
    NEW:
       IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
       code point in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry:
    
          0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
    
       IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
       code point in the  the OSPFv3 Prefix Options registry:
    
          0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
    END
    
    (3) Section 4, I think a reference to RFC 8476 is needed as well to state the
    ERLD is advertised as part of Node MSD advertisement as defined in [RFC8476].
    As mentioned in my review of the IS-IS I-D, what happens if one receives ERLD
    in the Link MSD advertisement? As per my understanding this is not allowed,
    better to add normative text for the case then.
    
    (4) Section 8, suggest to also add one sentence for the impact of advertising
    incorrect ERLD. If there isn't any, that can also be stated.
    
    Nits
    ****
    (1) Suggested ordering of sections - ..ELC/ERLD/BGP-LS/ACK..  [matching between
    OSPF/ISIS]
    
    (2) Section 2, add [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] for terminology
    reference
    
    (3) Section 3, Add reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label for the
    definition and usage of ERLD
    
    (4) Section 6,
    
       The ERLD MSD-type introduced for OSPF in Section 4 is advertised
       using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute as
       defined in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
    
    I think you mean draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd here!
    
    Also, maybe change the title "BGP-LS Extension" as there is no 'extension'
    required, ELC/ERLD is BGP-LS would be automatically supported.
    
    (5) Expand MSD on first use.
    
    Thanks!
    Dhruv