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

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf