Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Acee

On the IANA question, you might find 5226bis of value, particularly
sections 7 and 8.

That I-D also introduces a clarification to the terminology so that
Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters
is a Group and
OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type
is a registry, something which you might incorporate.

'existing OSPF IANA registry' I find ambiguous.

 Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alia Atlas" <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; "OSPF List"
<[e-mail]>; "shraddha" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06


> Hi Alia,
> Thanks for the review.
>
> From: Alia Atlas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:22 PM
> To:
"[e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-prefix
[e-mail]>"
<[e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-prefix
[e-mail]>>, OSPF WG List
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, shraddha
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06
>
> As is customary, I have done my AD review of
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 before asking for IETF Last Call.
First, thank you very much for your hard work on this draft.  It is
lovely to see needed work move quickly and have numerous interoperable
implementations.
>
> I do have a number of minor issues on the draft - but all on the level
of clarifications.  Therefore, I have requested that IETF Last Call be
started.  Assuming good responsiveness on the part of the authors, a
revised version that addresses my concerns can be on the IESG telechat
on August 20.
>
> I do note that there are 6 authors on this draft.  Please provide
input - since I know that you all well aware that the limit is normally
at most 5.  One can identify a primary editor or two.  This isn't pure
process; the more authors listed on a draft, the longer it takes to
handle AUTH48 - particularly when some are not as involved and do not
respond rapidly and with full context.  I make no judgement about the
authors of this draft - who have clearly moved from pulling out the idea
into a stand-alone draft and had a number of different implementations.
>
> We’ve already made one pass on pruning the authors and since we are
only one over, I’d like to leave it as is.
>
>
>
> My review comments are below.   Thanks again for your hard work in
getting this far!
>
> Minor issues:
>
> 1) On p. 6, it says " AF Address family for the prefix.  Currently,
the
> only supported value is 0 for IPv4 unicast."  Please clarify VERY
> CLEARLY why this restriction exists.  Not everyone reading this will
> be familiar with support for IPv6 in various protocols and we are
really
> finally heading towards lots more IPv6.
>
> I will clarify. There are basically two reasons. The first is that we
really didn’t want to specify more than was necessary in this base
document. The second is that we have OSPFv3 for IPv6. So, you may ask
why we have this at all. The reason is that we didn’t want to rule out
extension of OSPFv2 completely.
>
>
>
>
> 2) On p. 6 and 8.:
> "The Instance field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple
> Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs.  A maximum of 16777216 Extended Prefix
> Opaque LSAs may be sourced by a single OSPF instance.": This doesn't
> really give normative behavior.  I assume that what you mean is that
> the advertising router has a number space for the Instance which has
> no significance outside of that advertising router and can have
> arbitrary values allocated from it.  Each of these LSAs is identified
> uniquely by its Instance number.  Please provide good text for what
> MUST be done and indicate that the value may be used for tie-breaking
> ("In this case, the Extended-Prefix-TLV in the Extended Prefix Opaque
> LSA with the smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. ")
> and there's an assumption that the values will be allocated from
> smallest to largest.
>
> I will clarify this. However, I don’t want to specify any assumption
about allocation.
>
>
>
> 3) On p. 6 for the Route Type, it would be useful to have a reference
to
> where these type values are pulled from.  I'd also like to see some
> text about whether other values could be valid in the future and how
> so.  For instance, I'm assuming that you are basically pulling the
> values from the OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type
>
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xht
ml#ospfv2-parameters-5)
> - so perhaps you could simply say so or clarify for what are valid
> values.
>
> Is there an example of referencing an IANA directory? I could also
reference RFC 2823 and RFC 3101 directly.
>
>
>
> 4) On p. 9: For Link-Type, could you also put a reference to the IANA
> registry?  I'd prefer it to be clear that if (unlikely as it seems)
> there were a new Link-Type added, it would apply here too.
>
> Sure. We’ll do the same.
>
>
>
> 5) In Sec 5, pleaes add an RFC Editor note that Section 5 will be
removed
> upon publication.  That's the intent wtih RFC 6982.  Thanks for
> including this section in the draft.  If the information wants to move
> to the OSPF WG wiki, that would give it a place to survive after this
> draft is submitted to the RFC Editor.
>
> Ok - I need to hunt down this OSPF Wiki we talked about in Prague as
well.
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
> 6) In Sec 2, there's an "e.g., mapping server deployment".  Could you
add
> a reference?  This tells me nothing...
>
> Sure - it is the segment routing architecture document.
>
>
>
> 7) In Sec 2, In the packet format, could you clarify Opaque type = 7?
Same
> for on p.8 for opaque type = 8 ?
>
> Sure.
>
>
> 8) Since you are creating the registry for the TLVs, please clearly
state
> that value 1 is being used earlier - instead of "suggested value" as
> on p.9
>
> Sure.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


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