Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 4593C3A0B3E; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 7Ci6CKLOXtKB; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 129533A0B39; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2026; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1589217595; x=1590427195; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/1Saxnf2dX+5QYF6F0jYrHApRYaQ6rWBhPYv2TMLPnk=; b=WyDqN81kyOEQa72tJ4KCadLwJj3R229U3vlIVYzafWe5vbtlSNlwEJXH 8rbyjsthzFIUSmP00qQB4qOcG8rqkGGlpLtKihsfUWyr45uA0m1eFlgmu NvZY9O5ChwzKtQ4NJF627s58qLJzMnPSZmd70F6LPTPvPCZoBi1t3fcaa s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,380,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="26025962"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 May 2020 17:19:53 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04BHJqv8010708; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:19:52 GMT
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
References: <158921254839.9500.17457680660479110887@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <cf224213-5098-a775-0be1-5b6412f2db29@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 19:19:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <158921254839.9500.17457680660479110887@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/PofQiiJ5fRe_TqMUBJDzLbvTdHk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?ospf-mpls-elc-13=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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, 11 May 2020 17:20:35 -0000

Hi Eric,

please see inline:

On 11/05/2020 17:55, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: 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-mpls-elc/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read.
> 
> Please find below one non-blocking COMMENTs and two NITs.
> 
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> == COMMENT ==
> 
> For my own curiosity, is there a possibility that a router receives conflicting
> node capability via OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 (assuming that both are running over the
> same network and using the same router-ID over OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) ?

that would be a bug likely, as the capability is not specific to any of 
the protocol and they only act as messengers. But we can not mandate any 
cross protocols checking either.

> 
> == NITS ==
> 
> -- section 4 --
> The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if
> we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)
> 
> -- Sections 3 & 4 --
> Is there a meaningful difference between the "advertizing" of section 3 and the
> "signaling" of section 4?

not really. In IGPs we tend to use "advertise" more. If you prefer, I 
can change all to "advertise" or to "signal" for consistency.

thanks,
Peter



> 
> 
> 
> 
>