Re: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00

Uma Chunduri <> Wed, 15 October 2014 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9761A0278 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZth8STtWnLa for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 315BD1A0161 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-8b-543db277499f
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A8.89.05330.772BD345; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:44:27 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri <>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00
Thread-Index: Ac/nYDNZmzKSyDByR9K6P8/qkig4XgA0/7Tw
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:44:26 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3C9014eusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonSrdik22IwbkzPBaHLn9ms9jwZyO7 xYntx1gtWu7dY3dg8ZjyeyOrx5IlP5k8vgDlA5ijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDKu9z5gKliUXPHv zQ6WBsbmsC5GTg4JAROJFXtms0HYYhIX7q0Hsrk4hASOMkqcmL6GGcJZzigx/e5fZpAqNgE9 iY9Tf7KDJEQEFjJKPL9+jxEkwSxQJdHacwfMFhbwlNj7dx2YLSLgJTH/7U0WCNtIovnFHLBB LAKqEh0T94Gt5hXwlZh0eCETiC0k4COxfvZ+oBoODk6g+OI3ZiBhRqDrvp9awwSxSlzi1pP5 TBBXC0gs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rhK0kMef1NWaI+nyJBWt3MEKsEpQ4OfMJywRG0VlIRs1CUjYL SRlEXEdiwe5PbBC2tsSyha+ZYewzBx4zIYsvYGRfxchRWpxalptuZLCJERh1xyTYdHcw7nlp eYhRgINRiYf3wRzbECHWxLLiytxDjNIcLErivLNq5wULCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi 4JRqYNSRdklh+DfllmL70f/LDz999tq5YbMid5F30g/NE6LFtdy3O/lCeVbMe/Hsx/TppVvO fd1yWytlzryep9O2X2k+9Db2s2902KYt7Ozqmoyr+rQ3TIvLCTn3XO1DQMZ5nps+XA8eHz9b +fBUZXJNh1jklfebX5w6s0TIMvH0W77UE+/S52vJiJcrsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAfC2mcpsCAAA=
Cc: "OSPF List \(\)" <>, "Ospf Chairs \(\)" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:44:31 -0000

Hi Les,

Thanks for your review and comments.
Please see my replies in-line [Uma]:

Uma C.

From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:44 PM
Cc: OSPF List (; Ospf Chairs (
Subject: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00.

The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to improve the quality of RTG Area documents as they pass through the IETF process. This is the QA review just after WG adoption.


This draft defines a useful extension to OSPF to allow routers in other areas to be able to associate reachable addresses with a router which supports a

particular capability. I do not foresee any major hurdles in this document progressing to become an RFC.


It would be beneficial to explain why the routable address information only needs to be flooded with domain-scope

(i.e. explain how routers in the area already have this information).

[Uma]:  Sure, we shall add a statement to indicate why this is relevant for domain scope.

I suspect the security folks will likely point to the dangers of advertising local node addresses domain wide -

which may make it easier for a node in one area to be targeted from another area. The security section should

anticipate this by referencing the various OSPF authentication RFCs as the means to protect this information.

[Uma]: Though multiple areas,  as all under same administrative domain, knowing this information  through RI LSA should not be a concern as such.

             But we shall refer security RFC's relevant as you indicated.

Major Issues

No major issues found.

Minor Issues

The IANA Comsiderations section should refer to the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry defined by [RFC4970].


Abstract: Last sentence

   s/the OSPF/the term OSPF

[Uma]: Sure.

Introduction: First paragraph

   " propagated to another area, those routers in the latter area need..."

The sentence should end after "area" and a new sentence begin with "Those".

[Uma]: Sure.

Introduction: Last sentence

   s/the OSPF/the term OSPF

[Uma]: Sure.

Section 3: penultimate sentence

The phrase

  "within the body of the corresponding RI Opaque LSA"

can be removed. It repeats the first sentence of the paragraph and does not match the equivalent text in Section 4.

[Uma]: Sure. Thanks!