[Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to complain about some wording in Section 5 that Ben already called
out, but I'll try to put in some specific suggestions for corrections here:

   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.

This wording makes it sound exactly the opposite of what you mean, that if the
RI LSA *does* reach all routers in a timely manner it can cause forwarding
loops.  I suggest this:

NEW
   In normal operation, it is possible that the RI LSA will fail to
   reach all routers in an area in a timely manner.  That can result
   in forwarding loops in partial deployments.
END

   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.

First, change "area, which" to "area that" (no comma).  That fixes a usage
problem.

But second, Ben and I are both unsure whether you mean that the new router does
or doesn't support the H bit, or whether it matters.  Maybe the right approach
here is to say a little more about what happens.  Something like this (adjust
as needed to make it correct):

NEW
   For example, if a new
   router joins an area that 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.  While it is propagating, the area as a whole is unsure of
   the status of the new router, and that can cause <what problem?>
END

   o  All routers, with the H-bit set, MUST advertise all of the
      router's non-stub links with a metric equal to MaxLinkMetric

Both commas need to be removed here.

   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.

This is very awkwardly worded and is really hard to decipher.  I *think* you
mean to say this:

NEW
   o  All routers supporting the H-Bit MUST check the RI LSAs of all
      nodes in the area to verify that all nodes support the H-Bit before
      actively using the H-Bit feature.
END

Did I get that right?