Re: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 12:14 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795C41AC3F3 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 04:14:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 wh1WPQLKnT3J for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 04:14:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C4C1AC3E2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 04:14:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3987; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425039270; x=1426248870; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5mw/WPrN4cMqer3bWEk4N9C3tHzlK7GlUTFbiG0hGK8=; b=IZRC8ZEgm8zTYDmEaRhw8zt1VD3WSCHRxx7UWrBHP0FfFu8oixfSo+ap Uf4e3RmIur+4yOn04FWyBl0YxjZ3r0bt2H3k4AtzupIHL9wMQ6ILx9747 +PmSSdT06BXA+8H67AapHslSLsDYy55PJLSBo0+XeYxLQxKx/UH1Y3xff 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BaBQDlXvBU/4UNJK1bgwJSWgTCCgqFcAKBH00BAQEBAQF8hA8BAQEEAQEBaxcGAQgRBAEBKC4LFAkKBAESiC8N1m8BAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEBARUEixKEQzQEhCUFhW6EPoVIiUaBG4tkhlIjg25vgUR/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,659,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="399698133"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2015 12:14:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1RCETPS010630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:14:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:14:29 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org)" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00
Thread-Index: AQHQUobvNT39IidKTE6pC0rlMHLb/Q==
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:14:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D115C98D.F654%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <9895263A1C63F148AF74F8585AF59305@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OPg0sP22UZECfNZLNCE1sOo_wp8>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:14:32 -0000
Hi Shraddha, Les, See one inline. On 2/27/15, 1:29 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote: >Les, > >Thanks for the review and comments. >Pls see in-line.. > >I have some comments in this draft. > >---Introduction >---------------- >---I think the last sentence should be removed. It is providing an >example of a use case - and as such is more appropriate for Section 5. > >---Also, node-tags are a property of the node - not of the routing >protocol used to advertise them - I would like to see this point >explicitly stated. Perhaps something like: > >---"Per-node administrative tags are used to advertise an attribute of >the node. As such they are independent of the routing protocol used to >advertise them. " > ><Shraddha> Will work on the rewording of introduction section. > > >Section 2 >--------------- > >This section seems redundant w Section 1. It should be removed. > ><Shraddha> I think this section is needed to explicitly imply that the >tags are used for TE as well as non-TE applications. > >Section 3 - Last Paragraph >---------------------------------- >What is the reason for restricting the # of tags in a single TLV to 64? >As OSPF TLVs have a 16 bit length field this restriction seems arbitrary. > ><Shraddha> This was suggestion from Acee to restrict it to prevent the RI >LSA overflowing. Since we have multi instanced RI-LSA this restriction >can be removed. > Will update the draft for this. Agreed. There shouldn¹t be any controversy in advancing the RFC 4970 BIS document lifting the single LSA restriction. Thanks, Acee > >Figure 1 >----------- >The format of the ASCII art above needs to be corrected to properly >indicate the field lengths. > ><Shraddha> OK > >Section 5 >------------- > >I would like to see this section moved to an Appendix. Since this section >is not normative that would more clearly separate the >normative/non-normative parts. > ><Shraddha>Use cases section gives information on the motivation of the >draft and looks necessary to be in the draft sections than moving it to >appendix. > >Rgds >Shraddha > >-----Original Message----- >From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg >(ginsberg) >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:02 PM >To: OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org); >draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org >Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00 > >I have some comments in this draft. > >Introduction >---------------- >I think the last sentence should be removed. It is providing an example >of a use case - and as such is more appropriate for Section 5. > >Also, node-tags are a property of the node - not of the routing protocol >used to advertise them - I would like to see this point explicitly >stated. Perhaps something like: > >"Per-node administrative tags are used to advertise an attribute of the >node. As such they are independent of the routing protocol used to >advertise them. " > > > > >Section 2 >--------------- > >This section seems redundant w Section 1. It should be removed. > >Section 3 - Last Paragraph >---------------------------------- >What is the reason for restricting the # of tags in a single TLV to 64? >As OSPF TLVs have a 16 bit length field this restriction seems arbitrary. > >Figure 1 >----------- >The format of the ASCII art above needs to be corrected to properly >indicate the field lengths. > >Section 5 >------------- > >I would like to see this section moved to an Appendix. Since this section >is not normative that would more clearly separate the >normative/non-normative parts. > > Les > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin… Acee Lindem (acee)