[Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 04 December 2019 01:45 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CE412000F; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 17:45:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, lsr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.111.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <157542393181.4688.9081200986119917089.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 17:45:31 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/0n9CUHzK8TLM2cmHAT8CDGjaYMo>
Subject: [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
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 01:45:32 -0000
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". Section 1 The OSPFv2 specifies a Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm that (same nit about adding "protocol") 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. Section 4 I suggest noting that the (lettered) sub-procedures of step (2) remain unchanged. 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? 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". 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? 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.)
- [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