Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani-location

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Fri, 23 January 2015 23:01 UTC

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <rpazhyan@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-netext-ani-location@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-ani-location@tools.ietf.org>, "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani-location
Thread-Index: AQHQN2B0+F6qqgRGTkuWjiIArO6N7w==
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:01:05 +0000
Message-ID: <D0E81236.19DBCF%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54C2D11D.8090205@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4BB600FD3AA9A049A9FE01BB9C163744@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/vRY87Bp3jQ013yMrFMCAeSFqk34>
Subject: Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani-location
Precedence: list

Hi Brian,



On 1/23/15 2:54 PM, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

>Hi Rajesh,
>
>On 1/23/15 5:47 PM, Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan) wrote:
>> Hello Brian
>> 
>> Thanks for the evaluation.
>> Comments embedded.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Rajesh
>> 
>> On 1/23/15, 8:45 AM, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>>     I have performed the usual AD Evaluation of
>>> draft-ietf-netext-ani-location as a part of the RFC publication
>>>process.
>>> I only have a few comments/questions on this draft that I would like to
>>> see resolved prior to starting IETF Last Call:
>>>
>>> 1. I would think that this document should be marked as "Updates RFC
>>> 6757".  Thoughts on this?
>> 
>> 
>> This is not making any changes to RFC6757 and so this not updating
>>RFC6757.
>> 
>
>An Updates tag is not reserved only for changing an RFC.  Do you want
>new implementers of 6757 to also implement this spec at the same time?


OK. Make sense to keep the ANI option as a single extension.
We though we were not making changes to the spec and so we did not use the
Update tag.



Regards
Sri


>
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> 2. In Section 3.1, the civic location field is limited to 253 bytes.
>>> Given that there are civic locations that exceed that length, can you
>>> provide a brief justification for that limit?
>> 
>> This is a good question. The practical reason for 253 bytes is that the
>> ANI length field is one byte.
>> However, the DHCPv4 Civic Location also has a one byte length, so we
>>felt
>> it was reasonable.
>> For longer length, a PIDF location URI could be used (a URI that would
>> dereference to a location object).
>> Potentially, we can add text around how the 253 byte limit could be
>> handled for long civic locations.
>>   
>
>I think some text describing how to handle locations that won't fit in
>the field would be good.
>
>>>
>>> 3. The two sub-sections of Section 4 use 2119 keywords when describing
>>> implementation details that really do not impact interoperability.
>>> Unless you want to get into interesting procedural discussions with
>>>some
>>> ADs, I would suggest modifying the text to not use 2119 keywords.
>> 
>> Ok.
>> 
>
>Cool.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>
>

[netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani-loc… Brian Haberman
Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani… Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)
Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani… Brian Haberman
Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)