[OSPF] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against
it because it should be very easy to solve.  The rest are non-blocking comments.

(1) The following should be Normative references: rfc2119 and rfc6987 -- this
last one because MaxLinkMetric (which is defined there) is extensively used (as
a MUST) throughout the document.

(2) Section 3. (Flooding Scope) provides information about the flooding scope,
but only references for OSPFv2.  It would be nice if the references for OSPFv3
were included there as well.

(3) Section 4.5. mentions that a "new TLV called Graceful-Link-Shutdown is
defined" for BGP-LS, but there are no details on the format, etc.  The IANA
Considerations section suggests a value, not for a TLV but for an NLRI Type!

(4) Section 5: "The node that has the link to be taken out of service SHOULD
advertise the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV..."  When would the node not
advertise the sub-TLV?  IOW, why is "MUST" not used?

(5) In 5.1: "MAX-TE-METRIC is a constant defined by this draft and set to
0xfffffffe."  Assuming that the intent is to define a new architectural
constant... I would rather see this constant defined separately (in it's own
section/sub-section with a formal definition) instead of "in passing" while
describing how to use it (a la MaxLinkMetric in rfc6987).

(6) 5.1 says that the metrics "MUST be set to MaxLinkMetric...and SHOULD be set
to MAX-TE-METRIC".  Why is there a difference?

(7) s/MAX_METRIC/MaxLinkMetric

[1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html