[Isis-wg] Fwd: review comments on draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 20 May 2014 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965BC1A03E1 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 14:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pac47Hyd39aG for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 14:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A76CF1A03AB for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 14:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 10so907262ykt.29 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 14:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=tOYlO/MeHzXzwt0oc3NUhAcnFm0vNPFj2f2Mt/+NS98=; b=R+H0OH8mCEmr0zVw6dCWnwtFgrp8G+K6MGyPoknmm8Az+/dBQS2L1PVElDqlNSflOT rytf6+p+xbndzBohmThJROmFwnUImtb/GbRAAHqEiNA09/ykHKj+hvlQWWyTEyPZsKXQ pwQjBm5uddy773ybeHrQCQ2G9ZOPw8JeREStwZEH1BIblaLHlPwnaiLH2pLSxF7UYMU9 wp32NKL3Qw2Jrd0XDkbyxUu0rc4jTNuABtgIPDM55fmFMqX+qIoI8Syj5lcadl9Qnusz ToXrSJzI19cNxcmgqPf9CK8FO9EdjBxSR5hUoTqhPtlZGpjm5D2c3Ga21IeB65Fbzzvm KdIQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id q36mr67161062yhg.18.1400622169769; Tue, 20 May 2014 14:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 20 May 2014 14:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rcW+JwryVr3RxOkTeBpaCKGUijz_F+f9w0e+5pV6YEzOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rcW+JwryVr3RxOkTeBpaCKGUijz_F+f9w0e+5pV6YEzOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:42:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdxtUgCYegU6s8vgTn5g5SKKBWHALJWB4Fp=ogEHNQwPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/yQWjuFOXJ5C0j0A70HHwDkCUwQc
Subject: [Isis-wg] Fwd: review comments on draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01
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: Tue, 20 May 2014 21:42:52 -0000

[Adding ISIS WG and Adrian]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Subject: review comments on draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01
To: "isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>rg>,

As a standard part of my process for evaluating drafts before starting
IETF Last Call,
I do a review of the draft.  This is that review.

In general, this is a really clear and well written draft.  Thank you
for articulating the reasons and requirements so clearly and for
taking advantage of this opportunity to make the
backwards-incompatible changes.

This draft is in excellent shape and I will start the IETF Last Call
for it - but I do have a couple specific comments below.  These can be
handled during IETF Last Call and addressing any concerns raised

Specific comments:

In Sec 11, could the following text be clarified?
" A list of the circuit scopes supported on this circuit and
  other non-circuit flooding scopes supported.

       R bit MUST be 0 and is ignored on receipt.

       In a Point-Point IIH L1, L2 and domain-wide scopes MAY
       be advertised.
       In Level 1 LAN IIHs L1 and domain-wide scopes MAY be advertised.
       In Level 2 LAN IIHs L2 and domain-wide scopes MAY be advertised.
For instance, does this mean that circuit scopes MAY be advertised?
In a Level 1 LAN IIHs, L1 scopes MUST NOT be advertised?

In the IANA section, do the registries for the sub-TLVs also need to
be extended?