Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniele,

please see inline (##PP)

On 29/05/2020 18:18, Daniele Ceccarelli via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12
> Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
> Review Date: 2020-05-29
> IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
> Intended Status: Standard Track
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The readibility of the draft has been significantly improved since my last
> review (v07), mostly the abstract and the introduction, which now cleary state
> what is the scope of the draft. I also appreciated the introduction of section
> 3 where a description of the existing solution is described.
> 
> Minor issues:
> - Section 4.1 - Advantages with respect to RSVP-TE are described while the text
> speaks about advantages with respect to RSVP-TE and GMPLS, probably it could be
> changed into: advantages with respect to RSVP-TE when used in packet networks
> and in GMPLS, something like this. 

##PP
I can change to something like this:

"Advantages of Extended Link Opaque LSAs as defined in [RFC7684] for 
OSPFv2 and Extended Router-LSAs [RFC8362] for OSPFv3 with respect to 
advertisement of link attributes originally defined for RSVP-TE when 
used in packet networks and in GMPLS"

Would that work?


 >
>- Section 5 - Why for the UDABM it doens't
> say the value MUST be 0,4,8 but rather says "the legal values are" ? Is 8
> octets future-proof enough? or conversely, if only 3 values are defined why do
> we need 8 octects as option? 

##PP
I have corrected that and use the same text (with MUST) for both SABM 
and UDABM.

We did not limit the size at the beginning, but later due to limited 
size of ISIS TLVs we limited it to 8 bytes to leave some space for the 
attributes itself (draft-ietf-isis-te-app). We wanted to keep the 
consistency between ISIS and OSPF which also helps BGP-LS. 8 octets 
should be future-proof enough (64 apps).

 >
 >
>- Section 8 - I really find it hard to understand
> this small section.

##PP
this section says that Extended TE Metrics can be advertised per 
application as well as application independent and suggests how that can 
be done.


> 
> Typos:
> -  Unidirectional Link Dela [RFC7471]

##PP
fixed.

thanks,
Peter

> 
> 
> 
> 
>