Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Mon, 18 September 2017 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC17B13302A; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cno6xqYG84E7; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x242.google.com (mail-yw0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B002A132D42; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x242.google.com with SMTP id t127so773937ywg.5; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7uuRPJRE6i0N4r7AvvokHbM5MMokj4MrTo6yfl15/fI=; b=APCCSmOl2Xp4u1T2dTh3Or9Euww2ud1BLerBciHO7XYQmB9C3F0QpofxLDSb5sz3K/ fXjetY+pRpUUnFDNpC/wbGKtEumItQyscXfwDuj3fYdZK9zzkYSwre+rtOU02fV7F+Pg lgHso9O2PoW7T/mU+9FG/04X0yBOop+bRiGs1SwOejeZxilsginQwHeYyzHEHfwWLEMi unPf/zunBoc/cG+FgfMErf1m/YVUPq8QvyUsFpaOkGDF0jKewWfqsxIzTVuuqDANE6g5 oYMaia3inHrGPxuu4BfzxSXgWsU0I8lLNYzfQhyhDIVCyUSAz6O7bzgY9mCEXTkvGyBE gdKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7uuRPJRE6i0N4r7AvvokHbM5MMokj4MrTo6yfl15/fI=; b=h/Lh0i2H/nWYacAhV3t4sgJXymcJBsv8OCsJBkV8ik45IHV1R+dnyw5hGSOylyX+rJ OHl/fLqjbyKDmMvxURgndyq12/fuWmtkHyC0ADN81yR4Cbs0383TCWYCdUYMhdHElZ2R 1zQAsrPKAwpPx9iF21S1IG9A/9/9rOopbU/18zh189WYKqBOAF2iO2Va/E095l0aGfFJ zRTpecPiKhpMwI2nICR3I0k+JSIhDlYeZzjc2sPPrni6lL/VDyy2TLeC1dL0LFTCoDYi f4XPSRbdiqFiWF6jiEBqX8AkoLKU0l9ILelPvnR8+y1t6xv+Xx5epdajC9lhlAX/nn2s r5dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgRDeAjsfF2W+PTpcvK2Lptd0b5SW+8u9Hwb2oNq3W6xXfeihFv Mi/cUHe7UOeqSNcx4uY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7waFVq9NaUC9Bu2Ci7kOg1xNcijKDKIHhZSIqBFOH+OD7oj6r5KXf9pNMC2ROPS5e1zm1N4w==
X-Received: by 10.37.49.213 with SMTP id x204mr27536609ybx.40.1505766283910; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.12] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w137sm3333615ywd.9.2017.09.18.13.24.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1405DEF4-1AAC-459D-874B-5EB4B93AE94C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CF74EF73-7600-4424-A55E-076A5B24BFAC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:24:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <10459_1505748011_59BFE42B_10459_96_12_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47879377@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
References: <150414779958.16833.5322499494351720362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <10459_1505748011_59BFE42B_10459_96_12_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47879377@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/07__O4wA-vnOQwVE4CZqgWs9ffo>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 20:24:47 -0000

Hi Bruno,
  Thanks for the changes.

> On Sep 18, 2017, at 11:20 AM, <bruno.decraene@orange.com> <bruno.decraene@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Suresh,
> 
> Thanks for the review and comments.
> Please see inline [Bruno]
> 
>> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:50 AM
>> 
>> Suresh Krishnan 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> * There seems to be an difference between this document's definition of
>> sub-TLVs (with 2 octet types and lengths) and those of RFC5512 (with 1 octet
>> types and lengths). So I am surprised to see the document point to the RFC5512
>> based TLVs for both syntax and semantics (Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 ...) . Can you
>> please explain how these sub-TLVs are encoded on the wire to be compatible with
>> this draft?
> 
> [Bruno] Would the following change works for you?
> 
> OLD:
>        This Sub-TLV of type 2 is defined in Section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type
>        sub-TLV" of <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps"/> from a
>        syntactic, semantic, and usage standpoint.
> 
> NEW:
>        This Sub-TLV type is 2. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value field is defined in Section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type
>        sub-TLV" of <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps"/>.

Excellent. That would address my concerns. I checked the new version of the draft and this fix addresses all of the instances of this issue. I will clear.

> 
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> * IANA considerations
>> 
>> Looks like the value 65535 is included both as experimental and reserved. Suggest changing
>> 
>> OLD:
>> 65500-65535    Experimental                              This document
>> 
>> NEW:
>> 65500-65534    Experimental                              This document
>> 
> 
> [Bruno] Good catch. Thanks for the careful review. Fixed as per you suggestion in -07 https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07.txt>

Great.

Regards
Suresh