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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 14:49 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 1CDD1120809; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 NCKueAArO1N1; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430E5120143; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3049; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1570114138; x=1571323738; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PPWi+4BM7lEKHkXtc9M1zDKHmX5JVJ8vJkAt8/uIDzw=; b=QSUlAvatIdpMNXlTCkLOMC4ayIQfIyA24R3c0TeFGw0nqs1VJ7e6Dave hcWZKc9dbYRMQrmgrj+XH2LjlXAkyS5DlidRtws1XUHsZuSFAvlC59BNE xyfLMsU3D29rm9j5bd3kOiJLT9pn8Tcp2KQg3dlTdV56GSF4s/bknaeuA U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DTAABaCZZd/xbLJq1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEMAgEBAQGBZ4NeIBKETIkCh0UlmyEJAQEBDi8BAYRAAoJoOBMCAwkBAQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECAQUEbYU5hUwBBSMVQRALGAICJgICVwYNCAEBgx6CC61cdYEyhU2DMYF?= =?us-ascii?q?IgQwojCaBQD+BEScMgl8+h1GCWASWIZcXgi2CL5JjBhuCOodOhAWLM49pmBu?= =?us-ascii?q?BaSKBWDMaCBsVgyhPEBSQFz8Dkg0BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,252,1566864000"; d="scan'208";a="17589721"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Oct 2019 14:48:55 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.59] ([10.147.24.59]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x93EmtCG006243; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 14:48:55 GMT
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc.all@ietf.org
References: <156828311401.16614.6386779752971919411@ietfa.amsl.com> <db33b455-2cd4-00fa-5954-df90c584fb3c@cisco.com> <CAB75xn4PAOmiEyOD1K9R5zGLGNwMpTD_FV3HRNWpD1fthVVJPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e9ba0ddd-1102-9495-a30f-4a4b90dec13e@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 16:48:55 +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: <CAB75xn4PAOmiEyOD1K9R5zGLGNwMpTD_FV3HRNWpD1fthVVJPA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.59, [10.147.24.59]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/XfBwPDUVVf1NBRkQZyOXvG86mgs>
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 14:49:01 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

On 03/10/2019 16:14, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> 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.

##PP2
sure, I can do that.
> 
>>>
>>> (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?

##PP2
I can make that informative.

thanks,
Peter
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> 
>