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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

From: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 at 1:25 PM
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)
Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 at 1:25 PM



On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:28 AM Peter Psenak <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Warren,

On 15/05/2020 03:25, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote:
> Warren Kumari 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nit: “ When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a
> prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol,   it
> SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix.“
>
> S/the /OSPF/OSPF/.

fixed.

thanks!

>
> S/for the prefix/for the prefix (if it exists)/ — some protocols will not have
> / carry the ELC.

fixed.

thanks!

>
> Apologies if I missed it, but I didn’t see discussion on *exporting* ELC into
> other protocols...

what do you mean by "exporting"?

Sorry -- the above discusses : "When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix ... FROM some other protocol,  " (imports), but presumably you would also like to be able to do "When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix **INTO** some other protocol,  ..." (exports). Yes, the "other protocol" document should describe this in detail, but I think that it is worth mentioning the topic here -- we may be helpful for implementers to keep in mind that this may occur, and so the data should be reachable (likely through the RIB).

Can you suggest some text? Do you realize that in the Routing Area, route redistribution (aka, route import/export) has always been considered an implementation matter and is not formally specified. It would hard to standardize this now (other than Routing Policy YANG model) due to differences between implementations.

Thanks,
Acee

W


thanks,
Peter

>
>
>
>
>


--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
   ---maf