IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 4ADC612422F; Wed, 17 May 2017 05:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 hukVHWzVWVzf; Wed, 17 May 2017 05:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709E5126C23; Wed, 17 May 2017 05:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1442; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495022825; x=1496232425; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Kfrsg8wpAuTwoxaYgXd3EZ/kLMgDSvAhV6u32SUBwd4=; b=CrhUgxJ3OfjX2ejGDhc4utPIVeDXVz/ZiutO4A4AtGbN+L3nEjdemC6H jztaSSI4fgFx3c7sIwUniHW/6Xzd8AbF+D4OR4NyprnxlpW6uK7SX/rRT EPS5KKPPqtIKJgeZBYTBc0PQkUa1CTDfVZz34EnCxrOOaA6woBhgRQJFF w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAQBEPBxZ/5BdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHg2aKGKdbgg8shXgCGoVAPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUZBiM?= =?us-ascii?q?RRRACAQgODAImAgICMBUQAgQBDQWKIw6tGIImiwcBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEYBYELik2HdYJgAQSeEAGTGpFtlEUBHziBCnAVhzx2AYdagQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,354,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="424735363"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 May 2017 12:07:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4HC73UB023271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 17 May 2017 12:07:04 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 17 May 2017 08:07:03 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 17 May 2017 08:07:03 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Min Ye <amy.yemin@huawei.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14
Thread-Index: AQHSzu8WdJCLcbGHPk6KfFYvglZsraH4bkGA
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 12:07:03 +0000
Message-ID: <D541B500.AF34E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <149501293882.6715.9441857001639471954@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149501293882.6715.9441857001639471954@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E9A9EA8FBE58504CAF82A26B9C2BB31D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/CbLr5AqQnCU1kbyLQjGU-O7jpVw>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 17 May 2017 12:12:09 -0000

Hi Min ,

On 5/17/17, 5:22 AM, "Min Ye" <amy.yemin@huawei.com> wrote:

>Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands
>Review result: Has Issues

I think the result is “No Issues”.

Thanks,
Acee
>
>Hi All,
>
>I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this
>draft.
>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt
>
>Summary: 
>
>This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow
>
>additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA.
>Overall, well written, easy to understand what the objective is for
>this draft.
>
>Comments and Questions:
>
>This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would
>almost argue to call it OSPFv4..
>
>Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that
>would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to
>extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a
>better 
>way to achieve the goal.
>
>Minor Issues and Nits:
>none.
>
>Thx,
>
>Ice.
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email