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

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Sat, 06 January 2018 00:31 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 4B92F126B71; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:31:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 TFKdao_ycD3H; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6279C126B6E; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:31:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9240; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515198678; x=1516408278; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=eZqf/UXII2f5sA5M2RVnhZY57wNDCIqLvlbyddboJo4=; b=mfZvaIPMA+v2j6DezN6Z9K+psvysH7PkzsEh/0gWxO+r08V3H0Dd88SQ X3V6RgxII6BqwYHmMw6lbUC5ykOBAZavAP9HBMWO2KGHqI8DYIPT847+n GSlFw/UYCwkB6iHfxKF9VqMLth1Pdg9PgFbPKjU0My79Tumtr/SmdgL6y k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKBAC8F1Ba/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJKdYFaJweEAJh+gVsnkVmHZgqFOwIahBhCFQEBAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohSMBAQEBAx0GVgwEAgEIFSoDAgICMBQRAgQOBYlLZLI+gieKSQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2EFIIVgz4BKQyCeYMwghSCcTGCNAWZboluApU6lAaWZgI?= =?us-ascii?q?RGQGBOwE1I4FQbxUZTgGBf4RXeIhUgRcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,320,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="52371553"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2018 00:31:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w060VHxK001836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:31:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 18:31:16 -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; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 18:31:16 -0600
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <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: AQHTXmMvIlsDCkaUj0W5jcon0L55haMrdnkAgAD5RwCAFzjKAIAWpEsAgAAgg36ADEXKAA==
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:31:16 +0000
Message-ID: <9EED72FB-9263-4DA1-95C1-D4E1B4C1A6C0@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>
In-Reply-To: <007601d38094$72d122a0$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: [10.156.165.58]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9EED72FB92634DA195C1D4E1B4C1A6C0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/LXkPfnfCvH2kMoNnqqgqwp7QjD4>
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 00:31:20 -0000

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.”


"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>>