Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: (with COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 24 January 2018 20:11 UTC

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend@ietf.org>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTlSbglvpVMR4MukeWhB7MK8uJgaODdKwA
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:11:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4775BB48-EBF8-4B07-AA70-EA088870A1E8@cisco.com>
References: <151680722696.25644.17704112504428127535.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151680722696.25644.17704112504428127535.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EF743154E2FE0A4B8FCC9EF7B9BD0549@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/_8H0GpVmpurky3OoKCNiwXrmFOo>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <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, 24 Jan 2018 20:11:21 -0000

Hi Suresh, 

On 1/24/18, 10:20 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh@kaloom.com> wrote:

    Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: 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-ospfv3-lsa-extend/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    * Section 3.10 and 3.11
    
    What does the sub-TLV length mean here? Are values other than 4 and 16
    permitted? If not, how is the packet treated (sub TLV is ignored?)

My thought was to allow for further sub-TLVs defined recursively. However, one would still need a minimum length of 4 or 16 for the forwarding address TLVs. I will add this constraint and will indicate that the TLV is treated as malformed if it is not at least 4 or 16 octets respectively. Similarly, for the Route Tag sub-TLV, I'll indicate that the length must be at least 4 octets. 

Thanks,
Acee

[OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draf… Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draf… Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [OSPF] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draf… Suresh Krishnan