[Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Thu, 18 August 2016 10:08 UTC
Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EA612D8BA; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147151492610.22106.79065841387065539.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:08:46 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/0roHWiIMY8zgswjem6cFgmu-NI8>
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis@ietf.org
Subject: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:08:46 -0000
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to get clarification on the following points before recommending approval of this document: 1) Section 2 says: The Router CAPABILITY TLV is OPTIONAL. As specified in Section 3, more than one Router CAPABILITY TLV from the same source MAY be present. Section 3 says: Where a receiving system has two copies of a CAPABILITY TLV from the same system that have different settings for a given attribute, the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ procedure used to choose which copy shall be used is undefined. The word "attribute" only occurs once in the document, so it would be better if it is replaced for clarity. Does "a given attribute" mean "a single sub-TLV" or "all sub-TLVs included in a CAPABILITY TLV instance"? If "a given attribute" means "a single sub-TLV", then I have the following followup questions: What happens in real world if there are two CAPABILITY TLVs which contain different attributes? Are they treated as cumulative (i.e. this is a nice trick to overcome CAPABILITY TLV length limit), does the second CAPABILITY TLV value always overrides earlier instances of the CAPABILITY TLV? I think the document should state what happens. If there is no consistent behaviour in this area, the document should says so as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) In Section 4, 1st sentence: how can this specification have requirements on implementation that don't support this extension? As per Alia: RFC1195 says " Any codes in a received PDU that are not recognised shall be ignored and, for those packets which are forwarded (specifically Link State Packets), passed on unchanged." So I think the document should mention RFC 1195 and don't use RFC 2119 keywords for something which is already stated there. For example: OLD: Routers that do not support the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST silently ignore the TLV(s) and continue processing other TLVs in the same LSP. NEW: As per RFC 1195, routers that do not support the Router CAPABILITY TLV will silently ignore the TLV(s) and continue processing other TLVs in the same LSP. 2) Should subTLVs have an IANA registry? Or is there an existing one already?
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alia Atlas
- [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alia Atlas
- [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov