Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Hi,

I have read the document and I support it for WG adoption.

I have following comments, that can be handled later

(1) Section 4.1
OLD:

   The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as
   the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
   [RFC3630].

   The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of each TLV is:

NEW:

   As per [RFC4970], the format of the TLVs within the body of an RI
LSA is the same as
   the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
   [RFC3630].

   The RI LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of the per-node administrative tag TLV is:

END

Also, it should be stated
- if are more than one instance of this TLV in RI LSA are allowed.
- Minimum one tag must be present in the TLV
- What happens if the implementation does not know the Interpretation
of the tag value

(2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is required
to store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values.

(3) Backward compatibility - few lines may be added to state that as
per [RFC4970], unknown TLV would be silently ignored.

Nits
- Avoid using reference in abstract
- Expand LFA on first use
- Administrative Tag TLV or 'per-node Administrative Tag' : consistent
naming through the document would be nice

Regards,
Dhruv

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF
> WG document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>