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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 30 August 2014 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB531A89FF for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 CPA2L4X6RDmN for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BA471A89FD for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id tr6so4171571ieb.28 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ecV+3D3ZZRemdaYHbQYGKFxn3anlt+VV2gdHaN12IRs=; b=xSJTQwa4xc0VIGuJJWh63xeqGV0cz0k87kcIhJNEoAN2T6TjTm+IL2E7tVOr9sTbWX dEJYLGq5KCMG3VTZH0U9Fot53hi5/8ITYMt1hZ2o2V8JWZ/UXNm/RmW3Dj9gKIHpqq76 phznBh0epZtgEsNTrUQechj5eSmkTovBm46dFqcQJ8nM/lJvRlddu3A8qiYzJBuzvhgF 2bwrI2+1klqoi1rutSKRxHEcfRZAUIDShSgCprH2zTWgYyGvwBFxi5am1A4j/y+Bo83q 5StB/Q9dxa56r7XoxzNVfkUQKTH8B+T+CxDXvhAj5ufXd7caGav0wxKO3IUzIOdYsn0p 8w6g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.41.65 with SMTP id d1mr10342640igl.23.1409403128018; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.89.232 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:22:07 +0530
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ass_QJq4pAuwRVl29yjkLTgOK4g
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6B=V7CgggHVcynEOS4BPvyYHdcpfkg=y7TPAZ67a6cZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/8dY59F4_92I-FcEb8Ipfya4K59U
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Aug 2014 12:52:10 -0000

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
>