Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-13: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

On 07/06/2020 17:21, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-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-te-link-attr-reuse/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document. I have a single non-blocking
> COMMENT (question):
> 
> In section 5, if the SABM and UDABM lengths are either 0, 4 or 8, then I wonder
> why the "SABM Length" and "UDABM Length" fields are 8 bits. In control plane,
> using 2 or 3 bits length would not have a performance impact and would allow
> for a longer Reserved header field.

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).

We keep the byte for the SABM and UDABM lengths to avoid problems of 
existing implementation.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> 
> 
> 
>