Re: [Isis-wg] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-09

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

Alia -

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 1:14 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-09

Hi,

As is customary, I have done my AD review of this draft before progressing it.
First, let me thank you for a well-written draft and the work you have put into it.

Next, I believe that a revised version is needed.

1)  This draft has 7 authors.  The limit is 5; you can pick an editor if you can't trim
down to 5.  I can, of course, listen to a clear write-up of contributions made by each
author of this 7 page draft, if you feel that an exception is truly warranted.   Until this
issue is addressed, I will not progress this draft.

[Les:] I will revise with myself as editor.

2) The Security Considerations section is completely empty.  You know that this
needs to be filled in - if only as a reference to the existing ISIS security and a bit
on why sending additional information isn't a concern.

[Les:] Sigh…
If we had not thought about Security issues we would have put TBD in the section. The statement “none” represents a thoughtful consideration of the security issues and a conclusion that there are “none”.
I am willing to put a statement in that says that – but allow me to “sigh” because Security seems to be the only Section where even if you have nothing to say you are required to say something anyway. ☺

3)  As a minor kvetch (meaning that you don't have to agree), I'd prefer to see
a bit of motivation or how this is expected to be used.  There's a very small amount
of motivation from SR - but that doesn't really explain the need to send the originating
Router ID.

[Les:] Your “kvetch” is about how this should/could be used in the future?
I believe Section 1 clearly states the motivation for the bits which are currently defined – as well as router-id.
It is hard to anticipate what additional bits might be defined in the future – though clearly they all need to be an attribute of a prefix.


4) Clarifying question:  When a prefix has the external prefix flag set and the Router ID is sent, is that the Router ID of the router that is doing the redistribution or of the original advertising router (if it were available)?

[Les:] The routerid is always the ID of the originator of the IS-IS advertisement- not the router-id of the external protocol instance from which IS-IS might have learned the route.
That said, I don’t see any need to advertise the router-id when the prefix is an eXternal prefix. It would not do any harm to do so – it just isn’t useful. We could add some text to that effect.

If you can address these issues quickly, then I can issue an IETF Last Call and we can have
it on the agenda for the Jan 7, 2016 telechat.  That means that I can issue the IETF Last Call no later than Dec 17.

[Les:] We will try to get a new version out by early next week.

   Les

Thanks,
Alia