Re: [OSPF] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-cap

Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 20 October 2006 23:05 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gb3QJ-0002G5-U5; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:07 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gb3QJ-0002Fz-1L for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:07 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gb3QH-00031m-Mi for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:07 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2006 16:05:05 -0700
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9KN55x2016605; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:05 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9KN55DM028338; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:05 -0400
Received: from [10.82.216.102] ([10.82.216.102]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:04 -0400
Message-ID: <45395620.4090608@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:04 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-cap
References: <200610191232.k9JCWdlG028778@bright.research.att.com> <45380295.3040203@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45380295.3040203@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2006 23:05:04.0682 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DC860A0:01C6F49C]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2862; t=1161385505; x=1162249505; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20AD=20Review=20of=20draft-ietf-ospf-cap; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dc+JmBEW7rwvdfW93DwNImUodnlo=3D; b=vVPse9caaMocM3/pqFrooXiHSpxq5AM4OfhnWE/1pt81mQOP/4KEwdoBfcCLFMNqNp6p5LSf u+UmCxQo5Aa1A1VDdjZEhijjdLt6d5qhgDuP/d4x15WAszfIpUVldxEx;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

Bill,
Assuming the Internet Draft editor;s automated response system doesn't 
reject my
submission due to Monday's deadline, I went ahead and made the changes
in the new 09 version of the draft.
Thanks,
Acee
Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Bill Fenner wrote:
>> I'm sorry for taking so long on this review.
>>
>> My major comment is that I think that the bit order in
>> the RI TLV is confusing.  (Partly because the IETF-standard
>> packet picture is confusing!)
>>
>> Check this combination:
>>
>>        0                   1                   2                   3
>>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>       |             Informational Capabilities                        |
>>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>>       Bit       Capabilities
>>
>>       1         OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE]
>> ..
>>
>> >From the picture, this could mean 0x40000000, while I think it intends
>> 0x00000001.  This may be more confusing when (if) the 33rd bit is
>> assigned.  I'd recommend a description of the bit numbering, along
>> the lines of
>>
>> Bits in the Informational Capabilities field are numbered beginning at
>> 1, starting at the low-order bit of the first 32-bit word.  If further
>> 32-bit words are used, the low-order bit of the second one is numbered
>> 33, the next one is 65, etc.
>>
>> (That's just off the top of my head and may not make complete sense).
>> Alternately, you could represent the bits as hex values, e.g.
>> 0x1, 0x2, 0x4, 0x8, 0x10 instead of 1,2,3,4,5.
>>   
> Actually we did mean to start with the most significant bit in the 32 
> bit field
> consistent with IETF standard numbering. However, the document has 
> changed over its
> lifetime and it looks like we've missed bit 0. Since this TLV is for 
> informational
> purposes I think it would make sense to reclaim bit 0. I'll also 
> claify the numbering
> and contact someone regarding update of one of the existing 
> implementations.
>
>> The other item is the IANA considerations.  Normally we don't say
>> that a WG is the expert, since the WG may not live forever; we say
>> that the IESG designates an expert, and the IESG designates the
>> current WG chairs while the WG exists.
>>   
> I'll replace "subject to review by the OSPF WG" with "subject to 
> review by an expert
> designated by the IESG".
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>>   Bill
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf