Re: [mpls] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia, et. al,
the new version of the draft has been uploaded. It includes the changes
we've discussed as well as addresses comments we've received from Mirja,
Spencer, Ben, and Benjamin.
Thank you for your help and patience.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: Discuss
>
> 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-mpls-residence-time/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for a clear document.  I think that this should be a
> straightforward Discuss to better clarify.
>
> In Section 4.8.1, it says "The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered
> list, from egress node to
>    ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path." but the
> sub-TLVs (as most clearly
> indicated by "4.8.1.3.  Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV" are actually meant
> to be a list of interfaces.
> It isn't clear whether these are supposed to be the egress interface, the
> ingress interface, or just any
> interface - or why sending just a Router ID wouldn't be sufficient.
> There is no indication as to whether
> it is ok to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 address Sub-TLVs for the same
> node or how to select which one
> to use.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1) I am disappointed that the sub-TLV needed for an OSPFv3 Extended LSA
> isn't defined.  While I understand that a normative reference isn't
> desirable - instead of "left for future study", it would be better to say
> that the sub-TLV should use the same format as in Sec 4.3 and that the
> type allocation and full details are left to a future document.   This is
> exactly how gaps are created for networks running only IPv6.   If
> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-13 were not waiting for implementations
> and had a clear time-frame for how and when to progress, this would also
> be a Discuss.
>
>
>