[OSPF] 答复: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

The Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs which in turn contain Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs. More specifically, the intent of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs contained in a given Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is to describe the specific parameters to be used for the tunnel indicated by the Type of that Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV. 

I wonder whether I have understood your points correctly.

Best regards,
Xiaohu 

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2017年9月11日 15:39
> 收件人: The IESG
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Dear authors,
> 
> I see that a new version has been posted.
> Can you let me know how my DISCUSS point 2 has been addressed?
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: 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-ospf-encapsulation-cap/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 1. I agree with Tim Wicinski's OPS DIR point about IANA.
> >
> >      The content appears to be fine, but there are some outdated (the
> biggest
> >      one is 5226 replaced by 8126), but its the IANA section which appears
> the
> >      most confusing.
> >
> >      7.1 OSPF Router Information (RI) Registry -  appears fine
> >
> >      7.2 OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV Registry
> >
> >      This one defines the values being defined/allocated from "This
> Document"
> >      but in Section 5, each Sub-TLV is defined in other documents, so it's
> >      totally confusing.
> >
> > 2. It's not clear which of the following sub-TLVs are
> > required/relevant/interconnected in the Encapsulation Capability TLV
> >
> >              0    Reserved                                  This
> document
> >              1    Encapsulation                             This
> document
> >              2    Protocol Type                             This
> document
> >              3    Endpoint                                  This
> document
> >              4    Color                                     This
> document
> >              5    Load-Balancing Block                      This
> document
> >              6    IP QoS                                    This
> document
> >              7    UDP Destination Port                      This
> document
> >
> > The only hint is:
> >
> >        Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
> >        TLVs as defined in Section 5.
> >
> > Zero? really, what's the point?
> > Now, from an operational point of view, which sub-TLVs are required/make
> sense?
> > Are some sub-TLVs irrelevant without others? Ex: Color without
> > Encapsulation Could we have multiple identical sub-TLVs? Ex: Color
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > - Sometimes you use "Encapsulation Capability TLV" (section 3),
> > sometimes "The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV" I guess that: OLD:
> >
> >   The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
> >
> >         0                   1                   2
> 3
> >         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >        |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)
> |
> >        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >        |
> |
> >        |                            Sub-TLVs
> |
> >        |
> |
> >
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > NEW:
> >   The Encapsulation Capability TLV is structured as follows:
> >
> >         0                   1                   2
> 3
> >         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >        |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)
> |
> >        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >        |
> |
> >        |                            Sub-TLVs
> |
> >        |
> |
> >
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > In section 7.1, should it be?
> > OLD:
> >      Value   TLV Name                                  Reference
> >         -----   ------------------------------------   -------------
> >         TBD1    Tunnel Capabilities                    This document
> >
> > NEW:
> >      Value   TLV Name                                  Reference
> >         -----   ------------------------------------   -------------
> >         TBD1    Encapsulation Capabilities             This document
> >
> > OR:
> >      Value   TLV Name                                  Reference
> >         -----   ------------------------------------   -------------
> >         TBD1    Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities      This document
> >
> > - Then there is a discrepancy between Sub-TLVs and Value in the
> > related text
> >
> >         0                   1                   2
> 3
> >         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >        |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)
> |
> >        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >        |
> |
> >        |                            Sub-TLVs
> |
> >        |
> |
> >
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > Proposal: Sub-TLVs should be replaced by "Tunnel Encapsulation
> > Attribute Sub-TLVs", and the following text updated:
> >
> >    Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
> >        TLVs as defined in Section 5.
> >
> > - Then, reading section 5, I see yet another name: "OSPF Tunnel
> > Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2.
> >
> > You should re-read the document to be consistent with your naming
> > convention, in the text and in the IANA sections.
> >
> >
> > .
> >