Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.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 022FC12094D; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 EfUX1CZuTJNe; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (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 3655412093D; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id u8so5877441iom.5; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bY1qlV43FevhDsHFj03QTGvhc6+pXzvEl1oy4gMQG7I=; b=DngnZY+oCK11EAfkaFDOoeJet/H0CKf5hoGXgLHDzYCwm87lk3Lgcls3McTgjkLOxx uVhLM2gm4enCYnDoOocRCSmbRCjgG2yj4Aho69Hdz1JrSj+BDk6W98GVuCtd1uPKvKHR h0A/Vwn0ttG/X2cVu7eDQECSOCc0bn2V5w5faLMMpt/hlSP3WcqezYWuFScyWq/NuB96 jD4SkykV0E5q+NalsNzWmyGZf4usXmieCNX+P7V3ycOGGIAbqRf3QHf3yQR2Qyyt6Edz TpsXAgvlEtVCoKnMuwltILr83b3p3i0QIBk4/YSUeeX6aAPArPJvuW1AfLzgSnA/ofTK PGjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bY1qlV43FevhDsHFj03QTGvhc6+pXzvEl1oy4gMQG7I=; b=Ce3BBZ5eyuvoE/NYCvyftJlS/xUKuTjXd3mrBxb6QUuqVaIMiDSAPKPjgWLqWZZDbN 7Hh0/aCUCe0TXuJLgUiFZM8Rz0Mhlx2/YSIyRvaXa/hEAoCKqIoUPA0AT6Dgnn8GQeVb /1y1kbkfj8JEd+FmX7ziFLTybQ59jx8Mx35VzLLJEFusFa9PFedGAUM/zkuLJOm35ujl E91SH4gfLkDMc7kI5H3a4/Fbi/QDs8icSI8kEvsLgrjUWcG1BvVqRsbUtvCRZ9y1jTb2 GZmNI/zIwz3ty1aEobPbzDYEoHPdOdB1ix+fBGRSCOtv6/htOXqa8VSz7qKKBaITd3qo 41nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUY0WH8Z7XqdGhH+kpENxkW37KmcbHwpWLDwpGbpWuOGRLwa3Vb 80fbviDcBQ5PUjFm4Aov3cmfEBIJhTmQRNOPKsY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxunvx5wYncc8/LuP5UdQzRuJbLNE8qw5aud/GbkaiJniRmLSlWVmWTZC7MIISqoqKPTIKF4EepdxXESgQE4P0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9c4c:: with SMTP id 12mr7984591iof.276.1570112107149; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 07:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156828311401.16614.6386779752971919411@ietfa.amsl.com> <db33b455-2cd4-00fa-5954-df90c584fb3c@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <db33b455-2cd4-00fa-5954-df90c584fb3c@cisco.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 19:44:30 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4PAOmiEyOD1K9R5zGLGNwMpTD_FV3HRNWpD1fthVVJPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/BzA6IIG9BIFW4cB4yEdhP7qOl6s>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 14:15:15 -0000

Hi Peter,

Snipping to open points...

> > (1) Please use updated requirement language text as per RFC 8174, as you do
> > have a mix of upper-case and lower-case terms in your I-D.
> >
> >        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
> >        NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
> >        "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
> >        described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
> >        appear in all capitals, as shown here.
>
> ##PP
> RFC 8174 allows the usage of a mix of upper and lower case. If used in
> lower case "they have their normal English meanings", which is the case
> in this draft. Do you have any specific concerns in that regard?
>

DD: You are currently using 2119 requirement language in the front
page. I am suggested to move to 8174.

> >
> > (2) Could you mark that the codepoints mentioned in the draft are early
> > allocated by IANA? This would make it clear that you are not squatting on them.
> > I also suggest following change in Section 7 (IANA Considerations) -
> >
> > OLD:
> >     This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv2
> >     Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry:
> >
> >        0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
> >
> >     This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv3
> >     Prefix Options registry:
> >
> >        0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
> > NEW:
> >     IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
> >     code point in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry:
> >
> >        0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
> >
> >     IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
> >     code point in the  the OSPFv3 Prefix Options registry:
> >
> >        0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)
> > END
>
> ##PP
> I'm not sure above is necessary, given that the above text would change
> eventually to simply say which code points have been allocated.
>

DD: As a reviewer, when I see code-points in draft, I think this might
be a case of squatting on the code-points and then I need to look up
archive and IANA to make sure. As the document goes for external
reviews I assume this would be the normal reaction, and thus suggest
this update to save up effort for the next set of reviewers. But
totally up to you to make the change or not :)


> > (3) Section 3, Add reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label for the
> > definition and usage of ERLD
>
> ##PP
> The Introduction section has:
>
> "This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as
> defined in[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]"
>
> Is not that sufficient?
>

This is good, wondering if this should be a normative reference?

Thanks!
Dhruv