IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 20 March 2020 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.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 5D7203A0874; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 4jnG-A-hZPB3; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 C5B243A0864; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id b21so6598475edy.9; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JwLEoLLYofneM76QzoKzwFFB0h+DV1fGH4Ct5Uyzbas=; b=PVbkIBBrvl4T1hwKy2AsQ9hF7VjkFnrtEgIcVterWfHkLIx63ee5a4ZFUvBH3n4yHg xrRduL6U4xHA5XGRBQ74gL/UoNoBIabfZturpkbOEGxYt+tRhOY2RIxlLgiqN2BTnqBg mbNBOnCFjkfD3BIB+VDEMAc7oDPOCMlVTtJTFpjY5f4RSeBCwfQG1bRKmAPLV3IETNxt 57i7aahz32xXSK3SFroiFB9xVf/GYU09Pdl3W/ET6Qys+SZitmjz5t7VGa7iRTPvFx83 Hi+ldGISLqdRce08IYr+tXz4nv/g01vxuZ5/aAVFfJuEIV/en//VAtt2NeA5m364ep8L TwzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JwLEoLLYofneM76QzoKzwFFB0h+DV1fGH4Ct5Uyzbas=; b=EOxJG0HF7n6zyINW8hG/kX2Cs6/RCsyT8rpGpDlmErbiCFvuPV5YrqNCXqy7Ck02IS FHGX8S6oWW5hJrvGoCNfrqVSY8llSpMNzhwBKW1YnqcPiATIZwxPXLXIjn9L5ImOJqdx +5vBYknpfdnhUHnm8MNlXSDnHmzP0jXcXsBjWhwXhxIUY4P7oKQA6V2+bOKvVnWkXQNf ugPf81SBz6qngPFzUf2AQAa4YcvRbEtT/zhQe/MceXQgQp0wKE4W7heBCx1xZRxqalrr VI9dF7wJk+fKa3iO6SwIljt3R6oPL9+Zvcygh1n9WgXjs3XGt8Xkl2el3kcl9JfJSWqI Ys+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ095mE4sXblX3gbamglqXdWAIhJghkGf5TFrmIVgV087hDVKlRT zO5GsMOZr4QUGs+q5rcbZy40LC8ZnjCrx/3y6inu07jH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vt2l5wKPFlpGqZaiJ0/755r1Ab85j8LZj0ldCZs5YP03KctqJ/9zQWTINDc6kPiLd+OhCpjrqGxn7u/LPgeJ+Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7083:: with SMTP id b3mr7852208ejk.238.1584701942902; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:02 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ff3ae6d5-3bfe-d3c9-ff63-725da0d09e62@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESsyMkZgpU69GyL8TpwPS7EoO2rxTHWREOwEz7pNRFtNEJw@mail.gmail.com> <6bd667d8-6957-894e-f11e-aa727065190c@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxwbv3aUvg_gR+Ssny=YkW3D2_6tVgDpJx9BGH_Mrdh=A@mail.gmail.com> <0d9b6c73-d309-d2ee-15e0-722df9c32629@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxy7KyCMdAFX2iRHYy78qvQ4eoXLxCRmNj1PGNdOO=QDg@mail.gmail.com> <ff3ae6d5-3bfe-d3c9-ff63-725da0d09e62@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:59:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESszNuZ505G_4o-z-A9ts9SR5tV+9xxDORzUPbSQiPdMcag@mail.gmail.com>
To: "draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/3uGXm0yL7FxBk-Qz4M9RmdjIQaA>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-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: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:59:17 -0000

On March 20, 2020 at 6:22:38 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:


...
> > Besides the in-line comments, I want to point out here that this
> > specification is incomplete. It needs to have (1) a formal description of
> > the new MSD-Type (similar to §5/rfc8491), and (2) a discussion of the
> > interaction with the BMI-MSD.
>
> sorry, I missed it.
>
> Entropy Readable Label Depth is defined in rfc8662.
>
> I have modified the text as foolows:
>
> "A new MSD-type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD is defined to
> advertise the ERLD [RFC8662] of a given router. A MSD-Type code 2
> has been assigned by IANA for EARLD-MSD."
>
> Would that be good enough?

Not quite.  According to rfc8662, when a new MSD is defined, the
document MUST indicate the meaning of the absence of the MSD
advertisement.  For example, it says this about the BMI-MSD: "The
absence of BMI-MSD advertisements indicates only that the advertising
node does not support advertisement of this capability."


Also, I need you to talk about the interaction between ERLD-MSD and
BMI-MSD.  If both are present, what should happen?  Should one take
precedence, should both be ignored, can they coexist without issues???


Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email