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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:39 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com; Jie Dong;
> bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.co; isis-wg@ietf.org;
> weifang@chinamobile.com
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)
> 
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> > But hopefully we can comment on 01 anyway?? :-)
> 
> Of course!  ;-)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, the point was to help document some of the field failures that
> we've
> seen and motivate the changes.

I think the introduction as is provides a good description of the
motivations.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> True, but without the background, these changes would seem like
> something
> straight out of the Oort cloud.
> 
> Compromise: condense the text and move to the introduction?

Well, you have my vote (don't need it) - but if the consensus is to keep
some of this then I would be happier(sic) with your compromise proposal.

> 
> 
> > 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)
> 
> 
> Works for me.  Other folks?
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Can't hurt.  I'm certain that this will break some conformance testers
> regardless.

Indeed.
My concern is that someone will start rejecting purges if they don't
have the new info - which would clearly be wrong and incompatible.

   Les

> 
> Any other comments?
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg