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

Alia Atlas <> Tue, 12 April 2016 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBC312E21F; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wLHU82vKGjnX; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6A1A12E3E7; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p188so41325114oih.2; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=CqZJ96HIKnPb/1e7+LKiBfJoMp02ogXfvb04h7RvyjQ=; b=DB+X50L+kjCcZ+26RoZByTZOn/rMFXqeaiEponRYVMBbMhTSO/sxSi2peFhnQZEcjX 34RM7MVjBj8ig9oSPPMBaNkqFdpDAnwlJQAq8x/fsupeveWJ6Hw07eNczqdI0UDZnSht fu0Aqh4hiQyrVjjPfbgl2b2hTMWCxNIdw63tnnJKg51diG+XWAF0xxwZFV6oEBcKm5Ym n9NXDeJGdDujpCcqGtejsbDKnj1UciLwUqpHMHFQXq8PkWbM2hwVkU7EbV1mAQeWp82g i2BkdLB/KNp768uPqQWk6RrMqkkD06pw+u5zGQYTtKZX988RJ+ULC3KGBhCzKifWBRmw UGbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=CqZJ96HIKnPb/1e7+LKiBfJoMp02ogXfvb04h7RvyjQ=; b=atEKZknCw9vL5l8CKtq1ldNoBDec+D+AcJQDj0/8rZBJCI4VoNdd8h0WiGtmRAMomC aVhx2mObczbxqC9UwL+Ifkqjmai2ecCmrOxZmyWcIIJaYJB2qSV/iD7VifKd+xaBI+Bq yw+GJNj8i+CvGSQ4sAejRtlrgrIOHRPVa5CbkPb2A5u3mFcGd5KdFeWadd0WzaSw1LoI ClVc076LWR6QeZ05yZesu//6TznXiuqN66K7b0Ymx3UrLUXKLY+jSzJmVWCy8qBtyq1S DvKu2bTuyjUcCOj6DzPJhuxXESXbD2iKsN41OvVAFtOJAHeplInt/QErbB0jaaN5k/Qr 3oXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVr06NrtzAsYh0VYxaRBB8TqSqljYxYHbDReDpT8uLO+jl0DgRAwG7Ps6VxDvJdSTEXcUJ3yLu+Yb/u9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id o3mr2708228oib.96.1460501396131; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:49:56 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
To: OSPF List <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d5edce917ae0530517a7d
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:49:58 -0000

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Alia Atlas <> 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.
>    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.

Thanks to Les for politely pointing out the sentence I'd skimmed over in
RFC 7770. The behavior for unrecognized types is in Sec 2.3 so this draft
should just reference it.


> Thanks!
> Alia