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

Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 09 December 2019 19:35 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 9650E120122; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:35:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 uWbEyqbgoCY4; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (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 D6DD812010F; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a67so7449021oib.6; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:35:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=Ylc2s8GP3/ptiBfsSxDzFy8PBtQvgHtR+B6pYxgn9Kc=; b=qFQ+5yVB3RGIZFe81iJnTCju9ZFKkGOINjRdbfwj5W8j6yycQqnj66kruk6U6mIVAJ U0UGEz8N6+R9aKSoNhg41ks4tDzzeraTDhoD/Ua/7MuqJsZ2chJABbLbdUN2QrKB2kwH TbXjeBVN/K/J0DWvs7PIPHQTWFPU97Bt4JAG3sGeFR650hNJig7MgK7/Iz9u14ZflSod uf38zbjoPW/PtyR2IQGX9GW52Y25aEu59TsFLhPsZscvMmwHGF9BsQeIkVj+y///vaJY Q4jjJAwb738s9xvv8iNMd37DLgfPfqRcCyGJAkrdFQbWOEzPQArfvFnOeFEPXsX/h4UU +qGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=Ylc2s8GP3/ptiBfsSxDzFy8PBtQvgHtR+B6pYxgn9Kc=; b=oXz7OZ3HZ8DyAgQ5kXrhV5LkpXiPEmejXsyhRElarYFv/Tb8qeX69RLsXw+eKUIpBp u1N+4Dl2XywRgiDlxxBe84x4HQ/+7lPAWoUsBC/tuQ54K+UjCzfcDR64Rg+t7xfLZW4E 4XjXhUvkJ7jJUN+CM1KkGC31GJP8YRki7ysrtQBXPLjcOCSOUfL6maCxvm9owdg6OlOT 8Vqwd+VRWRSUjk8JBAGwbb30a4x3f0Maak0sFxRGrAb8VAR/wkY8lzVFpij0czeju01e uJfe5ADp1jfJIHMNI4rJg5+eZDwVJvhr5vPPkQJpWQqZ7JBwyJZJJawGA8hif3Ix4vBB Wp3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX7w0EzB2VKoIFyrWgoW2cYkZbVbSQAfpNyUsj6gYvHKKRJdL80 X6bmRgh45M1Onrg1w95PAxk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxbrbv/41anUiLwyRO23HzxrCaQ3NzUYfAgwKdkOuPS+2M8ZsINU3TS97xMuNaRa62Zsny+wg==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ab85:: with SMTP id u127mr694798oie.96.1575920113177; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.9] (162-231-243-44.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [162.231.243.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c68sm386691oig.11.2019.12.09.11.35.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F17B401C-4EED-4ACC-A12E-F1B622C938F4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:35:10 -0800
Message-Id: <92DC03C6-3056-4BDA-888A-20CCE73E9B0D@gmail.com>
References: <CAJU8_nXjqUV5Gg0aAQoWfiB1OZ0vh6ViHvOOvS-vpZ7Be_FkGA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: TSV-ART <tsv-art@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit.all@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAJU8_nXjqUV5Gg0aAQoWfiB1OZ0vh6ViHvOOvS-vpZ7Be_FkGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B111)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/5JchvzGZwrG7Fm_znccsJabp_oM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Tsvart 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: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 19:35:16 -0000

Thanks Kyle for your review.

Padma

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 9, 2019, at 08:27, Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Draft 11 satisfies all points I made in my review. Thanks.
> 
> Kyle
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:50 PM Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kyle
>> 
>> Thank you for your review
>> 
>> Please see below PPE 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 2:47 PM Kyle Rose via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> Reviewer: Kyle Rose
>>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>> 
>>> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
>>> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
>>> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
>>> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
>>> discussion list for information.
>>> 
>>> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
>>> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
>>> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
>>> 
>>> This document is basically ready. I have the following comments:
>>> 
>>> * LSA should be defined where it is first used.
>> 
>> PPE - Fixed for next version of draft  
>> 
>>> * I'm curious what happens if a router sets the H-bit when it is on the only
>>> feasible transit path.
>> 
>> PPE - The router with the H-bit set will not be "on the only feasible transit path" to other destinations.  The H-bit functionality will exclude the host router from the path calculation in the SPF.
>>  
>>> * In the security considerations, the document states:
>>> 
>>> q( The feature, however does introduce the flooding of a capability
>>>    information that allows discovery and verification that all routers
>>>    in an area are capable before turning on the feature )
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure "flooding" is the right term here, as the communication
>>> comprising the OSPF control plane is not new: only a single bit has a
>>> new meaning. This statement is also worded awkwardly, but without
>>> a clearer understanding of what is meant, I don't know that I can
>>> suggest alternative wording.
>>> 
>> 
>> PPE: OSPF will flood the LSA containing the capability... Perhaps "advertising" instead of flooding. 
>> See below:
>> 
>> OLD: 
>> The feature, however does introduce the flooding of a capability
>>    information that allows discovery and verification that all routers
>>    in an area are capable before turning on the feature.
>> 
>> SUGGESTED NEW:
>> The feature introduces the advertising of a host router capability information to all OSPFv2 routers
>>    in an area. This information can be leveraged for discovery and verification that all routers in the 
>> area support the capability before the feature is turned on.
>> 
>> Please let me know if this addresses your comment.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Padma