Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10

Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 09 November 2019 06:18 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 1E7021201DC; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:18:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 EUbvUDjT6B3d; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (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 078FA1200A3; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id 193so6545510pfc.13; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 22:18:09 -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=C+xarFT7FBgJOc5uw3i+874iwh5wyPGetZzKEPPcHYE=; b=CFom2jHDCCucY52Gfp69smGiWf5QQz6otdMbq6Fz/lLqx9X1fcl9RSboIe3ZMrX9UC qaxMs/xfdBgFOWg1Y1r90ZySBNubUn+U3bcWRCHdLd7hNSAgYzcMq6ivbct7GroH2XAQ F9BQe/uzyZkG+2TvWdO4MZAzP9BSl7jko7cj0IcFFFmg4trH86SFnIc6OvUHZAHZVzQX TWnaVbdQ/+/j1QNgCotjwzIBRB7r6+phnnJ42Ep2dJHiylXGOo9UJJ1MOxiy5SkQ2zCL 4Kou+OEJuDI3T6Ojf+AxySALw+k1/eTRjgKZgaU9gp1StNgT3O/piUq+PeqtM0EWvhW3 tgTw==
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=C+xarFT7FBgJOc5uw3i+874iwh5wyPGetZzKEPPcHYE=; b=VXHZdUvp+8dTwA4Q978xnKBu/AkclBFek1DpvF8mbp18h+854w6RETflfWrNVWj/iY LRtbkD85ekwFIQ3jrbUWPiTCeobvE6lEXSWvPZPEv8Bmje/VqSFiT5pCDco3q7v9NlG0 MIuGJZLh23B09tonF/oKPIsEGnYa9cCgyfA4NNA56cGGfQ513yOliSLEZkAoQdlOuS1+ cEJSbh2LKjRCtUNzMdD7eXuK6Avm0b80C4qqyCWRntjz62wlg82XdllvL3tmIRjxvG3j v5XwATUH5Y8XSt7E0xopZh9xVkG67BFWEUfRoogbDiPntpDjFdzresvFsfNlRQsUOzhI BiFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUHtN6b6P4Y0lb+rfjOlzWvEUK9dU6zIgnjG1aA4F1DZKCAAYnD KYz0aPEBx4v6DlpRuIiZClW+pARIShjDLc+sfAjzUShN
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUfx8O625nOyHuxpymQBp3M8lLVuAby3lYmDc6US0+s/L1MguBup2qpv2xp5W00/pzGexQFMK+wIIKQzBzyXM=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:ad57:: with SMTP id w84mr10412053vke.63.1573279871125; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 22:11:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157316531939.2026.10004843645321945107@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAG-CQxpWmc7Gb+X0f5vCeABkShe5=GzKW4grLHrG=BfWi=OYdA@mail.gmail.com> <86F8632C-EEC6-4444-AED8-4180C26A9619@jisc.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <86F8632C-EEC6-4444-AED8-4180C26A9619@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:11:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAG-CQxqTVCD828KW5ZE9z_n7YBqdsnoHct3aTjpRF4k-G5NTCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit.all@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9cd100596e3c33a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/0ZOSrn4cBB9ksdO3xujYSsesW80>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10
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: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 06:18:11 -0000

Hi Tim

It may be worth explicitly stating that OSPFv3 is not mentioned due to it
>> having an R-bit defined for indicating whether a node/router can be used
>> for
>> transit traffic (see Sections 2.7 and A.2 of RFC 5340).
>>
>>
> PPE> There was an earlier discussions regarding mentioning the OSPFv3
> functionality and eventually these references were removed in subsequent
> versions of the H-bit draft.
> The R-bit is not exactly the same as H-bit, even though both are used for
> the similar functionality, they rely on different mechanisms in the
> protocol.
>
>
> TC> Yes, I realised the R and H-bits are different though with similar
> functionality.  I didn’t realise only having read this draft now that the
> OSPFv3 text had been removed by WG consensus, in which case I am happy.
>
>
The changes were made during the review phase, IMHO the document will
benefit with the addition of a reference.
I will add a sentence in the introduction mentioning that there is a
similar functionality
for OSPFv3 and it is achieved using the R-bit as described in RFC5340.

Thanks
Padma