Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: (with COMMENT)
Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 18:23 UTC
Return-Path: <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C4312085B; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 10:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 tWosqC5Dg_lN; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 10:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20B85120933; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 10:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com with SMTP id p21so400386vsq.6; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:23:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z8lei/95cvPPy1QeOZX05CfOzOo3se8k4mdmo4cwrqw=; b=kl/ZXRL0RS7bstZkB8CcK03Rw3n6g9vs1zILcCj7Q2JzfQDmWWqeO5TPE0FO/BD7Eg PBdTc9+8HzAm9waNaxIzPrx/w2vPXQEg9F+edl2wC3BRkM7PZGDl1Tt2uIKbRTw7HDAd 2UEZJzxjc5BLzHRgaq6iQAIoaj3jE/M9Kxh1acZqzZzqIS2sTTe0Bjj3DmSQqxwxpK6e gh1UoYA1f2J68g3xXoCRsPjdw2RWtYpfm22juvZcNUOg9klpe7+wZyElGeQTImWb65+h l+WYe+1dWrFgn3vAEq7peEcUgPZ+imfqhO/NCtz/7dH/BIi2L1E08LrD8RlAHqRPy3Ei xoAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z8lei/95cvPPy1QeOZX05CfOzOo3se8k4mdmo4cwrqw=; b=cVjwUgXuPwUdKpqS7ctD1MpQ9UA+XxTZJGM3cdBmQ7ZIfDXt7J5TcC0Lw+BrmuyjG8 GWir6ksujNx12S02AoSk9wDzRxj0Y6XamG/sqOGyQv7b8DCWp/qr3EuLFm1AUb81mDAS I+CpB/LmV/LbZMEK5chV8UoKXwEZjaZihweE6Y/9WhuYLBApBsnBMNgtyBQwAA2f/R16 0QxUNKbj4nsHU/rYQocFJ36/S322qi/GJhU3RTspcZIh4zt4gEYaefvITR9o0G7BgAwK F7C578bV/jDvCQLQ0GBjEwn513FP+kRQ9icxgVRT5XTrIOu4VCqwKObgiYg9VbW1w3kH Spqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVo+Kw047qswssnBJ8Av6n/Hd7ffz/2xngv3MeQYOP4pBsechrZ LUdRtjq4hNgBbWiHFiFviBcb4J+I9Fj2HZiBYGQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw3ucbdXe890fVSeHVrCiXDixCweIPIUemG6pEx+vSF1ClpeKrUV0OCLeTkODAc+bwBu6zWOeOcVNK0lsSMFcs=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:af15:: with SMTP id v21mr2414112vsl.161.1575483784033; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:23:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157542393181.4688.9081200986119917089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <157542393181.4688.9081200986119917089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:22:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAG-CQxo6FmmF00Un3fMxCvD5jNkwevv0Y0D+6keLuZzDUN_5SQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004bfada0598e4e76f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/-eGrVM-DWJR9YHoFxSXcWW4C6U8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 18:23:08 -0000
Hi Ben Thanks for your thorough review. See below PPE for my comments On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:45 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Abstract > > The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) does not have a > mechanism for a node to repel transit traffic if it is on the > shortest path. This document defines a bit (Host-bit) that enables a > > nit: I suggest to add "protocol" after "(OSPFv2)" to match the definite > article "The". > > PPE - ok > Section 1 > > The OSPFv2 specifies a Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm that > > (same nit about adding "protocol") > > PPE - ok > This functionality is particularly useful for a number of use cases: > > nit: "this functionality" seems to refer to "the SPF algorithm that > identifies transit verticies based on their adjacencies", so I suggest > rewording to "such functionality would be useful" or "A mechanism to > move traffic away from the shortest path" or similar. > > PPE - ok will change as you suggest Suggested NEW: "A mechanism to move traffic away from the shortest path is particularly useful for a number of use cases:" > Section 4 > > I suggest noting that the (lettered) sub-procedures of step (2) remain > unchanged. > > PPE - The original format of OSPF rfc2328 steps for SPF calculation was kept for clarity. Would a sentence to that effect work? > Section 5 > > In normal operation, there is no guarantee that the RI LSA will reach > all routers in an area in a timely manner, which may result in > forwarding loops in partial deployments. For example, if a new > router joins an area, which previously had only H-bit capable routers > with H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to > all routers. > > It's currently only implicit that this new router does not support the > H-bit; shall we make it explicit? > PPE - ok Suggested NEW: If a new router without H-bit support joins an area, which previously had only H-bit capable routers with H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to all routers. > o All routers supporting H-Bit MUST check all the RI LSAs of nodes > in the area before actively running the modified SPF to account > for the H-bit in order to verify that all routers are in routing > capability. If any router does not advertise the Host Router > > nit: the grammar here is a little wonky, particularly for "all routers > are in routing capability" but perhaps also for "to account for the > H-bit". > > PPE - agree Suggested NEW: All routers supporting H-Bit MUST check all the RI LSAs of nodes in the area before actively running the modified SPF in order to verify that all routers in the area support the H-bit capability. Section 6 > > When calculating the path to an OSPF AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA > [RFC3101] with a Type-2 metric, [...] > > nit: is this saying "calculating the path to [an LSA]"? That's not a > usage I'm familiar with; can the AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA really > serve as a destination in this sense? > > PPE - suggest adding the word " prefix" which was implicit here. > Section 7 > > Thank you for phrasing this as "this document requests the IANA to > assign", since until these specific values are officially assigned we > are technically "squatting" on them. (The respective registration > policies of Standards Action and IETF Review give us pretty good control > that nothing else is going to swoop in on them, though.) > > > Let me know if these changes address your comments Padma
- [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Padma Pillay-Esnault
- Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Benjamin Kaduk