[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 20:06 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 5680A12D6F1; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 vJ8aYd-tSdTJ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::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 030A212DB50; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k9so18979547obk.2; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=T06wtnyZ07E1a0MRNQO/X7wHtplQ9gjDRhY/4tJs8oE=; b=M4z3r3YbJK+ABoIYBsRBDOAn6FQs7XYhpo7m3nqpm11dL//UTKvaXN1fbiyk/U4FCI sHXGW0dRZxO8/bz16hXCM7FLhPG199TGOKULuzpP/e4WY1kZ5IoZO1ooZsRuIM9fmSnC 5YmGto4hBve5QFxR6TjppnAPwOnGCWqHjYUbKlW6Oe4BaAIba2UjUC89OG2TBByLwCyv qyR/x6j6ch5IJq0zJd5/zOwaLz7cGhwVhZP0mLGzpnW5vMZB9LU92D3OyWXWlW0BL7nI 6EuKnCVRMlSr6RwSHSs08cXiZ7n8dYs2lcQs2x7R2g2mi+ZWC1/eE4ma81BnGFkCvlEa zCJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=T06wtnyZ07E1a0MRNQO/X7wHtplQ9gjDRhY/4tJs8oE=; b=WkQxsWJrDlWUgTRccgs+Bq9+iiPxL1CJ5zHYr0O1sIIes/go4BAU5nrBxPYeUbHwjK VVIIo28fTf5BdXyftptq4+s4xFKMGpqztanNG/QWzZ1UNeoLMrx1kpAj0rNED85FxliQ AzBSTbhcCHTxaMja9CXiA/iwZq4oHLPCg0bg49tUAItByc1l9/Awu346hvgRDq/GUyI9 UwJ4d+PeBrG6aWG0FEi2/IYiEP7uVsFd7XEjeSWsAmQtjqbyQ3wIcyTP/ZwMPf7JiwZw DEpcg1CSR3NYJL6ZduZQdGc9yVeqbeyY/vxNlt3/o13r25km//aEPMk1DzeiegwP+WYk 3nIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVfQ815buIi9nXm/7xPUmVxUpJWFNlTPqfq8hrq7mbA+y02cPz161DrOA5l+YutfjtiJ8kEe4o+VUIguQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.38.233 with SMTP id j9mr2400872obk.57.1460491562315; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.115.168 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:06:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdhJFuaUSRVgNNm66jbMeZ23vaESAaem21J5h6zSvCEqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33936c4f90f05304f3040
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/7JgjrLsWoFRGQ-ImNhGT09IjDsY>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:06:07 -0000

First, thanks very much to the authors Manav, Carlos, Sam, and Trilok for
their work on this document.

As is customary, I have done my AD review before requesting IETF Last
Call.  In this case, I have a couple minor comments that I would like the
authors to address during IETF Last Call.

In addition to IETF Last Call, I am requesting a Routing Directorate
review.  I expect that both of these will conclude by April 27 and that
this draft will be on the IESG telechat on May 5.  During this period, it
is critical that the authors be extremely responsive and update the draft
as appropriate so that the process runs as smoothly and quickly as feasible


Minor comments:
   1) Draft references RFC 4970 instead of RFC 7770 which obsoleted it.  In
addition to updating the reference, please reread RFC 7770 and be certain
that there are no surprises that can come from multiple RI LSAs being
allowed or other nuances.  I personally don't see any right now.

   2) In Sec 2.1, it specifies "Routers that do not recognize the S-BFD
Discriminator TLV Type MUST ignore the TLV."  I don't think that this
document can mandate what routers that don't implement it do.  I went back
through RFC 7770 and don't see any description *sigh* for the expected
router behavior if a sub-TLV isn't recognized.  This might be a very useful
errata to add to RFC 7770 - unless someone else can find where the behavior
is specified.  For this draft, please think about what "ignoring the TLV"
means and what routers that do not know about this draft are likely to do -
and then update this sentence.

Thanks!
Alia