Re: [Lsr] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)ret, .

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Alissa,

as Les correctly pointed out privately to me, this updated text is not 
entirely correct. Not advertising the ELC bit can be result of:

a) router not supporting this extension
b) router supporting this extension, but not supporting ELC

So I would rather keep the original text unchanged.

This is not anything new. This ambiguity is common for any new protocol 
extension that signals a boolean type of information.

thanks,
Peter


On 21/05/2020 15:09, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Thanks!
> Alissa
> 
>> On May 21, 2020, at 3:51 AM, Peter Psenak <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alissa,
>>
>> On 20/05/2020 21:57, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: 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-mpls-elc/
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> I wasn't clear on where the  thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, 
>>> but I'm
>>> nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking 
>>> point.
>>> OLD
>>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 
>>> advertise the
>>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
>>> NEW
>>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 
>>> advertise the
>>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence 
>>> of these
>>> advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported.
>>
>> I added the suggested text, plus I added "OSPF" at the end. So the 
>> text is:
>>
>> "If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 
>> advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. 
>> The absence of these advertisements implies that advertisement of the 
>> ELC is not supported in OSPF."
>>
>> I added similar text to ISIS ELC draft.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>> Not sure if that matches the intent though.
>