[Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01

Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <umac.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424E112007C for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AdcdZCOkW3c for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 4E792120072 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id w19so6378174vsw.8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CPHGb8Z+31zCDZCSyYnTnDPq1Rv988Sl6UnNCZ14muM=; b=ex9V3Wmb2HZpo0CavEkacGJMQ/LhsOQISmpEl0aOxDT1tNgpLw25KjO9JMkSj5Yq/Y oH+JIRqeIVTs7SSKT2gZl9XTK0XvEkSswdq2w0JOxUFH24cfqSYdXJ7xtbv5b1gDRs7F SibQgGHWtIB/RYFwg98CzRXFcmnGQ2NyVC/rwmluBBPVJma8tfwDUeT/bKpx34IZPuol nIDkemZ6HjgXjE0YINM2HwfQaRMQ6yppmwXEp40r/UjAhI5Tj3y57oY/AYK+AgdRjc6H qvKjP3D48pwok3uKurg5g2jmW/coc6VCvm+N1W17L1DH0QSCce1xJdla64S1ayOQGJUV ePZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CPHGb8Z+31zCDZCSyYnTnDPq1Rv988Sl6UnNCZ14muM=; b=lxRobBEv0938h/6VTVNttMClLOWN07mAVoHEFcx7REizibun1Ei5A8TAZMJwl6duiC Sp/GVJvOzPvQQiKCia6jya7PrmeNP8WPSeykwnr5EvTEWi6pBSAHRzR3o1DyJogvSILA ellLus8Ufrg7/ScI1ATxlpvX3U3nVrzGlKf93VurRkb+3PnsMxWPZfZfdYkEEovcx0mv bgLVS+G3Izg4TO3NoNF4So6gaXgLPK5jvM+DnB5YLUrD2+8nME9Py83h53bHebT22sJo SoJAWW07rpQo8FBQz4X4sXRctu28zx5k1PtUFjkJo2kdB7z26PKqi6h6XuWpOsYbyQaq sXTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7cph3gYNjb7/YhTYItoSY4V8Ck6m99F2WC9RdScBY6oxsZrv9 lJxhXhkKP1cqDLaHN2f8K6kxvVwOUIZdsRAsLR90a6A0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyKpt1DnVotv2qxexubwbwiTqPgofj8RNpiAO7ItwkWT7rZxeOl0LZDxLI2VigO1/PK9YQf2O3IWsRRiADx8vs=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:6911:: with SMTP id e17mr21072580vsc.61.1558720133215; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 10:48:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF18ct7jj0sSxs02uAvdHSQcm+iUwYXQpjfXU7g28iBLp9dm5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d83aa50589a5cf2b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/HFtIVtNEUK-A27HOZ3gWhpUS5Ww>
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01
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, 24 May 2019 17:48:56 -0000

As asked by chairs I was trying to write the shepherd report on this doc.

Have few quick questions on this work:


Observation: The new text added in 2.2.3 (PR and PA bits) is almost similar
 to section 2.2.1 (RR and RA bits)

Now is there any relation of the timer here with T3 (which would have been
set by restarting router with the value received with RA bit set, assuming
it is lower than the initialized value  65535).

There is no description or guidance on how these values are related and how
the restarting router handle this.


On the text below

"a.  If additional topology changes occur, the adjacency which is in
       planned restart state MAY be brought down even though the hold
       time has not yet expired.  Given that the neighbor which has
       signaled a planned restart is not expected to update its
       forwarding plane in response to signaling of the topology changes
       (since it is restarting) traffic which transits that node is at
       risk of being improperly forwarded. "

Is this any topology change ? Not related to the restarting router in

Need clarification text here or point me if I miss something.

Have few more questions/comments overall and shall come back.

Uma C.