[Isis-wg] QA review of draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator-00

Dan Frost <frost@mm.st> Mon, 29 September 2014 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <frost@mm.st>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B797E1A86E1 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 1WajT_jW3lBq for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A48FE1A1B85 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924B721026 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web4 ([10.202.2.214]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:16:45 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mm.st; h= message-id:x-sasl-enc:from:to:cc:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:date; s=mesmtp; bh=v2rwuYUvTB3/fYi0aG8aok4oBmE=; b=AvPWDVHDKGd3ErOp61UR+eBA2rgU qSAeB71dEULaJLNF4CAwsk3ZVAjEUTpk4OxYQKWHFElSI7aLXZB3O3v7FQ3RfLNy mX8eHG4gkl3d1v9gQegNvV0F7rukVUN5aPI/wuHBuHbqIb+/UNLOubfTLVpdNKGI 2fJKILDnH4gjxxk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:x-sasl-enc:from:to:cc :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject :date; s=smtpout; bh=v2rwuYUvTB3/fYi0aG8aok4oBmE=; b=m/XQn8zxbWc /dIvEX5Jw53rS/oB5DjP1B02xY9K5R1DnSkRExmSi+/HJkmmKOGkvbDHXOpgpuub qM/G4wTgQRnyREOj1QJESbduCOY3zjUJYeTHUoDBs39NIPaRQkmtlNMzLetxOdxt XCGo9CcYdadNbZNPpGXWnnioQOzHmGQI=
Received: by web4.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 7020610BBBF; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1411996605.559647.172949773.17DE141D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: RQHIA8cIe1cprxDimWADEvrO4ts7zLfZHd8251DDRVEN 1411996605
From: Dan Frost <frost@mm.st>
To: draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator@tools.ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-cad53418
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:16:45 +0100
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/dwJ4KqBQycX-LXA6ZF0zFNF9VYk
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 09:04:59 -0700
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: [Isis-wg] QA review of draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator-00
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:16:50 -0000

Hi,

I have been asked by the Routing ADs and WG chairs to do a QA review of
draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator-00 as a candidate for potential
WG adoption.

Draft Summary
-------------
This is a brief draft that describes how Seamless BFD (S-BFD)
[draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base] discriminator information can be
advertised throughout an IS-IS area or routing domain using the IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLV [RFC 4971].

Review Summary
--------------
This draft limits itself to specifying the proposed new sub-TLV
encoding.  Provided the WG is happy with the flooding of such data via
the CAPABILITY TLV, the draft seems like a fine basis for a WG document.

Comments
--------
1. The draft abstract is meaningless to anyone without specialized
knowledge of S-BFD or IS-IS TLVs.  A paragraph or two of context here
would improve the draft quality.

2. Similarly, some extra context in the introduction as to what S-BFD is
and how it relates to the routing protocol would make the draft more
readable.  Mentioning the rationale for area/domain-wide flooding of
BFD-related information would be especially helpful, as BFD is generally
seen as a matter between peers.

3. The [S-BFD] reference, which is rather important here, points to
draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03 while the current version of that draft
is draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-03.

4. It is not clear from the draft why the CAPABILITY TLV was chosen as
the preferred mechanism as compared to other possibilities like GENINFO
[RFC 6823].  Perhaps this is implicitly understood by the WG, but some
rationale might be valuable if this is indeed one of several viable
approaches.

5. For some time, there has been a trend of leveraging routing protocols
to store and flood more and more ancillary information.  This must be
done with care.  I would expect a draft like this to discuss how much
additional data this extension might push into the network and the
databases of all routers in the routing domain, and what impact this is
expected to have.

6. Are there any chicken-and-egg problems here arising from potential
mutual dependency between IS-IS and BFD?

7. The sister document for OSPF [draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator]
describes some considerations in the last few paragraphs of Section 2.2
that don't appear entirely OSPF-specific.  Do any of these deserve
mentioning in this draft?  It might be helpful if these two drafts were
kept closely in sync, perhaps with the assistance of a common editor.

Thanks,
-d