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, 4 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