Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:55 PM
> To: [e-mail]; Jie Dong; bruno.decraene@orange-
> ftgroup.co; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I renamed the draft as draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-00.txt and
submitted
> > it to IETF. Its status is Initial Version Approval Requested.
> 
> 
> As long as that's stuck in the queue, there's not much point in
> submitting a
> -01 verison.  So here's the document as an attachment.

But hopefully we can comment on 01 anyway?? :-)

****************

I don't see the need for Section 3. It was interesting discussion
material while we were debating the merits of making this a WG document,
but I think it has drawbacks when it is included in what is intended to
become a standards document.

The first three points suggest (no doubt unintentionally) that this
document may in some way be redefining/clarifying the base spec in
regards to when it is permissible to purge. I don't think we want to
even remotely suggest that. If you want to know when it is OK to purge,
look at the base spec.
 
In the second set of three points, only the first (which documents the
lamentable purge on checksum error experience) has value. The last two
are anecdotal and could be translated as "there are some weird bugs out
there". Interesting - but unnecessary. The first point could be
mentioned in the introduction as part of the justification for the
protocol extensions - but I think even that is unnecessary.

********************
In Section 5 I would like to see language which says "hostname TLV
SHOULD only be used in addition to the system ID TLV". As every IS MUST
have a unique systemID but hostnames are optional I would prefer that if
an implementation chooses to include the extra info in the purge that
the system ID ALWAYS be there. (This is unenforceable of course)

*******************

I think there needs to be language which makes clear that the absence or
presence of this additional information has no impact on the acceptance
of a purged LSP as valid i.e. no changes to the operation of the Update
process are introduced by this draft.

Thanx.

   Les


> 
> Tony