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

A couple of other comments that come to mind:

We need to define what an implementation SHOULD do when it receives a
purged LSP with the additional TLVs i.e. store it (including the body)
and flood it unchanged.

If the same purged LSP is received from two different originators, the
choice of which "copy" to flood is a local matter.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:25 PM
> To: Tony Li; 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)
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Tony Li
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:55 PM
> > To: 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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I renamed the draft as draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-00.txt and
> submitted
> > > it to IETF. Its status is Initial Version Approval Requested.
> >
> >
> > As long as that's stuck in the queue, there's not much point in
> > submitting a
> > -01 verison.  So here's the document as an attachment.
> 
> But hopefully we can comment on 01 anyway?? :-)
> 
> ****************
> 
> 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.
> 
> The first three points suggest (no doubt unintentionally) that this
> document may in some way be redefining/clarifying the base spec in
> regards to when it is permissible to purge. I don't think we want to
> even remotely suggest that. If you want to know when it is OK to
purge,
> look at the base spec.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ********************
> 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)
> 
> *******************
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanx.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> >
> > Tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg