Re: [Isis-wg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 55F35127337; Fri, 5 May 2017 02:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dmJBy4nxy87r; Fri, 5 May 2017 02:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85314127058; Fri, 5 May 2017 02:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DGA72846; Fri, 05 May 2017 09:37:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 5 May 2017 10:35:25 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.22]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 5 May 2017 17:35:17 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, "hannes@gredler.at" <hannes@gredler.at>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSszY6zypsW3O1+0iwkju1INB8kaHlnTtA
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 09:35:17 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2F1E3E5@nkgeml514-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <149196485474.15674.2526336015666130770.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149196485474.15674.2526336015666130770.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.191.175]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.590C47E5.000F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.22, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 6a88721dc69d70c078c5af221b9882e9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/ADeHHjIKD_fO1K-cwrq_RA0syG0>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:37:45 -0000

Hi Suresh,

So sorry I missed your mail. Forgive me "digging out" this mail now...

> * Section 3.3.
> 
> The TLV format seems to be off. Why does there seem to be a two octet gap
> between the Type and Length fields and the Flags field. I think the flag field
> needs to be pulled forward to bit 16 and the Router fingerprint to bit 24.

[Bing] It is only for "good looking" that the value field would not be split. I saw this style in other RFC, just learnt to use it:)

Best regards,
Bing


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:41 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org; Hannes Gredler; isis-chairs@ietf.org;
> hannes@gredler.at; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: No Objection
> 
> 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-auto-conf/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * Section 3.3.
> 
> The TLV format seems to be off. Why does there seem to be a two octet gap
> between the Type and Length fields and the Flags field. I think the flag field
> needs to be pulled forward to bit 16 and the Router fingerprint to bit 24.
> 
> Also agree with Alvaro's comments.
>