Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 14 May 2020 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B713A0B66; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ye0mGZI112lQ; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6BDD3A0B84; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u16so33800384wmc.5; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LBeVhbdQkoMf+zSYzRgv1lVzXT9mcvPMa0fyuABVS+o=; b=rguTVgF1qqs/rLkUjGoQFsfmpznxVUFq/9KbSNhutYuUjKF9U2cDBsUp1WCmrfJEDR JYUw7k2QSdkos7hTmMENLLf24BXC8R3zY6X2eRp0qscCIumQXZOGsczoW0FCcD+BMm87 BTjmXb6GyZRabD51VoQDajlbNYa9em/VtuJNYcRV46nYxGr09QLhe0ayd7Q3ZL8isOZJ EmZvrC2irC+BsdNJcnOQ6ObvSHjxBWLvFIgCNxO5npK9yiFi+wB7U8mG3cqxB28D6bFV xguGilrmta4ZyRwgZA8iVRImwpjb8Wni6IgHi8RhEaCoEarBrGZIkBhcOOlu+NFU0NsX QY0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LBeVhbdQkoMf+zSYzRgv1lVzXT9mcvPMa0fyuABVS+o=; b=hHqjgf3A7UHNjlpIXwXIIZ5+TeviSvSiLIOCqFz4lKTAmub4DXEHCuNJqGeOEDe2QI BPvxF8A9cARv0Ro8AvDSMhjzrIMrSNnLg0Sa6oHJQIA+0YuO7+bmd4R/8mmogHkxlDl8 6wHNqfdUotTfJZitosYuvyQXFGxuvUI7MySdt0bsTzdAdsB+tq3YK6Zj0hPA2626tM8x 4Rli/+PmfDI+ZgX8kUrTTCD2H6yw5yudHk6znia8lk2EKVchQXb4fA1MOarjDDbyKVlk oroeClFg8jLXtcWQPWfTnFg6w4b2YhWiIB3f4VKu9J5ZsHPgaNAaipnJjK6kHL6DCFOf dbfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuavhlSoqn9zWUVARNtT+/pxbF6Y99qIhDv0FLT2xfjv4OC1PQ+0 D52etyY/anTldcGEmKEpisE4Eq3DcCsH5OHavMv4+ZH8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKLqebw7q3LPwniMRWLrmmhMl8qEHMFZvQU6rNLXGXrYKlXloHPfKH5w3Lcpi7zlpiLjOvis8/TpPrJgjqUBWQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c207:: with SMTP id x7mr26856542wmi.79.1589477215930; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:54 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:26:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Peter Psenak <>, "" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Yingzhen Qu <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 17:27:00 -0000

On May 5, 2020 at 6:08:27 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:



> I tried to address all of them, some have been resolved during ISIS
> draft review, in which case I took the same resolution for this draf.
> Please see inline, look for ##PP

There's only one outstanding comment that I don't think was answered
-- or at least I missed the meaning of the answer.  Please see below.

I am also including some comments based on -11.  Except for the
Normative language in §12.1, all the comments are basically

I am starting the IETF Last Call for this document and
draft-ietf-isis-te-app.  We can work on these remaining comments while
we do that.



> 434 6. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
> [major] The Local/Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLVs (rfc5329) can
> include multiple addresses for a link. It seems to me that it could
> be possible for different applications to use different addresses. If
> that is the case, then it seems that these sub-TLVs should not be
> application independent. Why are they not considered to be
> application specific?
> [minor] Why are IPv4 addresses not considered?
> ##PP
> IPv4 local address is part of the basic spec.
> IPv6 remote address has been added in rfc8379.

For IPv4: what basic spec?

For IPv6: rfc8379 doesn’t seem to relate to the questions — am I
missing something?

[Line numbers from idnits]


168	4.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA
184	   3.  There is clear distinction between link attributes used by RSVP-
185	       TE and link attributes used by other OSPFv2 or OSPFv3
186	       applications.

[nit] s/is clear distinction/is a clear distinction

203	   TE link attributes used for RSVP-TE/GMPLS continue use OSPFv2 TE
204	   Opaque LSA [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA [RFC5329].

[nit] s/continue use/continue to use

213	5.  Advertisement of Application Specific Values
252	      SABM Length: Standard Application Identifier Bit-Mask Length in
253	      octets.  The legal values are 0, 4 or 8.  If the Standard
254	      Application Bit-Mask is not present, the Standard Application Bit-
255	      Mask Length MUST be set to 0.

257	      UDABM Length: User Defined Application Identifier Bit-Mask Length
258	      in octets.  The legal values are 0, 4 or 8.  If the User Defined
259	      Application Bit-Mask is not present, the User Defined Application
260	      Bit-Mask Length MUST be set to 0.

[minor] "The legal values are 0, 4 or 8."  Should the statement be
Normative ("MUST be...")?  I know there is a sentence below about
ignoring the sub-TLV if a different value is received -- IOW, just a

319	      - Unidirectional Link Dela [RFC7471]

321	      - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay [RFC7471]
322	      - Unidirectional Delay Variation [RFC7471]

[nit] There seems to be a line missing...

532	12.1.  Use of Legacy RSVP-TE LSA Advertisements

534	   Bit Identifiers for Standard Applications are defined in Section 5.
535	   All of the identifiers defined in this document are associated with
536	   applications which were already deployed in some networks prior to
537	   the writing of this document.  Therefore, such applications have been
538	   deployed using the RSVP-TE LSA advertisements.  The Standard
539	   Applications defined in this document MAY continue to use RSVP-TE LSA
540	   advertisements for a given link so long as at least one of the
541	   following conditions is true:

[major] s/MAY/may

651	12.3.4.  Use of Application Specific Advertisements for RSVP-TE

653	   The extensions defined in this document support RSVP-TE as one of the
654	   supported applications.  It is however RECOMMENDED to advertise all
655	   link-attributes for RSVP-TE in the existing OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA
656	   [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA [RFC5329] to maintain backward
657	   compatibility.  RSVP-TE can eventually utilize the application
658	   specific advertisements for newly defined link attributes, which are
659	   defined as application specific.

[minor] "It is however RECOMMENDED to advertise all link-attributes
for RSVP-TE in the existing..."  The application specific
advertisements can be used and result in duplicate information.  The
ISIS draft includes some sample steps to eliminate redundancy and get
rid of the legacy advertisements -- can we add something similar here?