[OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14
Min Ye <amy.yemin@huawei.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 09:22 UTC
Return-Path: <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C8112EABC; Wed, 17 May 2017 02:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Min Ye <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149501293882.6715.9441857001639471954@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 02:22:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/RulzH96lq5UlrTR6z3HSUfY1Txk>
Subject: [OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 17 May 2017 09:22:19 -0000
Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands Review result: Has Issues Hi All, I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this draft. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt Summary: This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA. Overall, well written, easy to understand what the objective is for this draft. Comments and Questions: This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would almost argue to call it OSPFv4.. Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a better way to achieve the goal. Minor Issues and Nits: none. Thx, Ice.
- [OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-osp… Min Ye
- Re: [OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf… Yemin (Amy)