Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Sat, 06 January 2018 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7B412D574; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:39:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 r1672aecetmC; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16459129C6F; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:39:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3934; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515267581; x=1516477181; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=/T8Y7CQpiMLk6Mz32RnxWcZVLn0CnctNMtVkegJuoD0=; b=WTZfJlf7kZeuR59cVnuPUGBQ24/1nAt5D/sqvqDCDJERO+uZtoIgWY1F FepXYib6mQ0hLIenkI1aK9zk41UCuOhhtpZrC7pLAEKfRpQ+J0jnQPgZY LFu7RG+Mn++9vpgWLsPX1Qns2TN+Xm/FFNDBtDcfcePiuEoFND9qtgQpt A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DlAgARJVFa/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM/gVonB4QAmH+CApcqghUKhTsCGoQYQBcBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?jAQEBAwEdBhFFBQcEAgEIFQECAgIjAwICAjAUARACBA4FiikIr1eCJ4oxAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYEPgxGCFYM+ASmDBYMwgW4XD4JxMYI0BaNeApU?= =?us-ascii?q?8DJN9lmoCERkBgTsBIAE3gVBvFRlOAYF/hFd4iQKBFwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,323,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="122042178"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2018 19:39:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w06JddU3017683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:39:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 13:39:38 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 13:39:38 -0600
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07
Thread-Index: AQHTXmMvIlsDCkaUj0W5jcon0L55haMrdnkAgAD5RwCAFzjKAIAWpEsAgAAgg36ADEXKAIAAYM43gADgCoA=
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:39:38 +0000
Message-ID: <E7B4BFE2-4EA2-4C3A-BCE4-389300D1B8F4@cisco.com>
References: <87375fp3hv.fsf@chopps.org> <7185dbc2d3f34b9ea844ddef95b6278c@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <481C1CEE-A8B4-4034-B016-D2673296E96B@cisco.com> <700e8fed-40fc-cb1a-1ae3-f8401f167aae@gmail.com> <DDC43BA0-7D70-4D7E-B023-A5C04E8B1B88@cisco.com> <007601d38094$72d122a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <9EED72FB-9263-4DA1-95C1-D4E1B4C1A6C0@cisco.com> <00e501d386e8$35957bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <00e501d386e8$35957bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.76.21]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <ACA129FD5B5AAF48BBBE27405BC2AD2E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/19u6PfnOVBU_3QV3Mq6XV7USHzY>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 19:39:43 -0000

Tom,

Sure. We can add similar wording on that.

thanks.
- Naiming

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 4:12 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> Naiming
> 
> One follow-up comment inline
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 12:31 AM
> 
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>> Thanks for the review, some replies inline,
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 2:53 AM, t.petch
> <ietfc@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> A couple of IANA thoughts on this I-D;
>> 
>> "This document requests that IANA allocate from the IS-IS TLV
>>  Codepoints Registry a new TLV, "
>> 
>> - Is there a particular range that this value should come from?
>> 
>> NS> will add the range.
>> 
>> 
>> - A note in s.2 asking that TBD be replaced by the value that IANA
>> allocates might be useful for the RFC Editor.
>> 
>> NS> will do.
>> 
>> 
>> - Are the flag bits of this new TLV going to form a new registry?
>> 
>> NS> it is not.
>> 
>> 
>> - And a non-IANA thought - what does a receiver do if it receives more
>> than one such TLV?
>> 
>> NS> In section 2, it mentions "A sender MUST only transmit a single
>>     Reverse Metric TLV in a IS-IS Hello PDU.”
> 
> I know it does, but I also know that we cannot rely on all
> implementations being perfect:-)
> 
> Look at some other RFC (e.g. RFC5029) and you will find an action
> defined such as subsequent ones will be ignored, or perhaps that this
> should be treated as a fatal error or ..  I suggest something similar
> here although have no strong views what the action should be.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>> "This document also request that IANA allocate from the link-attribute
>>  bit value for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22."
>> I struggled to parse this initially.
>> 
>> Perhaps
>> "This document also requests that IANA allocate a bit from the
>> 'link-attribute bit values for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22' registry.
>> 
>> 
>> NS> OK.
>> 
>> (That registry title is a bit of a mouthful compounded by the lack of
>> Capitals in the title:-(
>> 
>> The coupling between the request to IANA to allocate the bit and the
>> actual definition in the body of the I-D is ... well, non-existent.
> You
>> should have a something about the octet with a TBD2 (not a second TBD)
>> in section 3.6, a TBD2 in the IANA actions and a request that this be
>> replaced by RFC Editor by the value that IANA allocates.
>> 
>> 
>> NS> will do.
>> 
>> thanks.
>> - Naiming
>> 
>> Yes, a reader can deduce all this but the lack of precision is how
>> mistakes are made IMO.  RFC5209 has the sort of detail that I would
>> expect.
>> 
>> Tom Petch
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)"
> <naiming@cisco.com<mailto:naiming@cisco.com>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>