[Lsr] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 861EC130E6C; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:03:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: ketant@cisco.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154531459754.19099.13417855235555116376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:03:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/596mCls1KHSIicqmh2tgIKjLF-M>
Subject: [Lsr] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (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: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:03:18 -0000

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: 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:


Rich version of this review at:

This seems like a straightforward document.

Looking at S 14, I see the following "The following people contributed
substantially to the content of this
document and should be considered co-authors". Is this just an
artifact of the 5 author limit? Perhaps we should make an exception.

S 4.1.
>      A bit: The A bit represents the Anomalous (A) bit.  The A bit is set
>      when the measured value of this parameter exceeds its configured
>      maximum threshold.  The A bit is cleared when the measured value
>      falls below its configured reuse threshold.  If the A bit is clear,
>      the sub-TLV represents steady-state link performance.

Just to be clear, I have no way of knowing remotely what the threshold
is, right?

S 4.2.
>      value (in microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as an
>      integer value.
>      Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of an offset value
>      (in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value, to
>      facilitate the communication of operator-specific delay constraints.

I'm probably missing something, but I don't think I understand the
purpose of this. Would you mind adding a sentence or two about how you
would use this offset?

S 4.3.
>      RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be set to 0
>      when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
>      Delay Variation: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay
>      variation over a configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as an

So the peer has no idea of what that interval is, right?