[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Sat, 30 July 2016 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 44C9E12DAEE; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vwRtB6qaXVQQ; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 AAEC912D69C; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id x25so78444186qtx.2; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8zVNclyEHKSPoindNoyWUkDdSP+emgFrVJGRg11wIXE=; b=t21HFd0W5TpaTCwtKqFZ5rj2Alcqbm5LsSw010Jsalr4t81Vorims2/2mWcqyy6K/7 YYRV1jjKQAJzDzgK4lRKtl85tUfLO+CEjNi4EaBdKjXFp4VlsrreITUMFfgt2tW+UFRL YjhbrxXVe00GFpNcVpQ5HAJoj1g3wQK54X0t1mYy2ZmMuPtvolKUsuFC4QfaluWR9TFE j6k3e+VkT6oq25D2Q6AXUjxkZ0szGpU3ZIapbX2Wjmv4WBrXcC10mHQSYbnqgluWgpa0 Rr5GnAn9/B2B6bafdsXf8tfejmm7pUavox6IiyV3cRjLgKLtkfnY9d6rrMwJp2GXqYIL fNeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8zVNclyEHKSPoindNoyWUkDdSP+emgFrVJGRg11wIXE=; b=CHnCwB9TXPRo3LB/DdvXwe5t36Niqdoj/giYlNG4ffxkQOVSGfpRyrn9OV9a29Tygy vYuzn+dsK4nU8waOidKDhQFr/BGwm1J+MF0VNRLwlsgWckY1n1yaYvwvqWlBcVonZd1p 3cqXAh4rJYW6DJK8GZAXmZuHab3SBly39GRAEycdySP3N3OxLqE31p/BOmAhXqDSszz1 raKvEyH7f+WEtkOgK++MEO3GpoELNXclOjKiptaNtv9ohMnEQjm86VgXZdUqMci+I9BP uehAwnvT5f0p5NXyME4zFKXNmmObuAiaqQeiiCDy0J3d6ia8OCsi7CYO0l7FdgBWWDie syLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoous50FU6PYAQTBndFgLJFJyF6a3nKrlGVLoPbFLpSqiQDFG67IY7qylyHFc+3viyL1Mrqep5C1YuRaONlQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.47.92 with SMTP id k28mr70977287qta.50.1469848749700; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.52.193 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 23:19:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1reezvCeBUdou32rZJ34TeWK1gsaAUD92DA_0i3-27rj3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11356d6299804e0538d1d404
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/79rLAWUqaJVsP5_3jQ7hEwtqLZo>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:19:16 -0000

First, I would like to thank the authors, Jeffrey, Lili, Acee, David,
Vibhor and Tom, for their work on this draft.

As is customary, I have done my AD review
of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05.
I do have a few concerns which are detailed below.  The number of authors
will block progressing to IESG telechat until it is addressed.   Trusting
to a timely resolution of the issues below, I am requesting IETF Last
Call.  With prompt action, this document can make it to the August 18
telechat for approval.

Review Comments:

First, this fairly short document has 6 authors.   As you all well know,
the usual limit for drafts progressing is 5.  This greatly simplifies the
interactions during AUTH48 and there is rarely more than a few active
editors.  Please consider if you can reduce it and explain to me privately
what justifications might exist, if any, for not doing so.

Second, please update the TBDs in the document for the various IANA
allocated sub-TLV values to be TBD1, TBD2, and TBD3 so it's easier to
replace during IANA and RFC Editor processing.

Third, Sec 3.7 defines bit 0 to have specific meaning but doesn't indicate
that in the IANA section.  Please update the IANA section to clearly
indicate the bit being requested (or update the bit to be a TBD4).  The
term used to refer to the bit also varies between 3.7 and 4.  Please pick
one term and stick with it.  In 3.7, it is "Router Functional
Capability Bit" and in Sec 4, it is Router Informational Capability Bits.

Regards,
Alia