IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@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 2E34812D5A0; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 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=-0.996, 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 GeZviduJpH0v; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D355D12D15D; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3882; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460565583; x=1461775183; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=bkj74Oy00REp6sy6Lp30OkaX5l7ZhQ1UX89zX6BtM8k=; b=MLquwrVnk8wupBXRhJSXVSbsSlNN7shvwE1x9WuIogIJ8Hkkyx7ZyHga zRydFDhxc+ABTEDveWQXBMtd4jPInsY2rtbK/IyWvLFEivFDTXQ2jK6rT 672T86cnxNMrVp+P1oHc2TpFJtk+OtWtndMKswCJNKa5D0Bl4Tt6J5jk2 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DAAgAMdQ5X/5ldJa1egzeBUAaubYtYDoFxhg4CgUE4FAEBAQEBAQFlHAuEQQEBAQMBI1YFCwIBCBgqAgIhESUCBA4FDogGAwoIsHSNCg2FIwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPCIYhgXUIgk6CQYR+K4IrBZMbhDwxAYMjgWaHDoF1gWeEToMohTOGIIErh1sBHgFDg2dsiHx+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,480,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="260188723"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Apr 2016 16:39:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (xch-rtp-016.cisco.com [64.101.220.156]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3DGdgOw027445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:39:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (64.101.220.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:39:42 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:39:41 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "akatlas@gmail.com" <akatlas@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03
Thread-Index: AQHRlPbLavt/Cp5MbkKMUR/dnaGk9Z+IX0eA
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:39:41 +0000
Message-ID: <C9D8BEF2-0381-471C-BC41-82D116036239@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdhJFuaUSRVgNNm66jbMeZ23vaESAaem21J5h6zSvCEqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdhJFuaUSRVgNNm66jbMeZ23vaESAaem21J5h6zSvCEqw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.115.56]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BB10C895-F085-4D46-86C4-4084092A34D0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/EcOKV59zFB8gKgSEahVeS3hBr6M>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:39:45 -0000

Hi Alia,

Thanks for this review! Please see inline.

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 4:06 PM, akatlas@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 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.

Great point. Working copy updated. I also re-read RFC 7770 and I do not think there’s any additional considerations or implications.

> 
>    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.

True, this doc cannot say “MUST ignore”. However, RFC 7770 S2.3 already says “Unrecognized types are ignored.”

I will change
"Routers that do not recognize the S-BFD Discriminator TLV Type MUST ignore the TLV.”
to:
"Routers that do not recognize the S-BFD Discriminator TLV Type will ignore the TLV [RFC 7770], and therefore will not learn S-BFD Discriminators via OSPF.”

Changes made in our working copy, and can submit when signaled.

Feedback most welcome.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> 
> Thanks!
> Alia

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email