Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A32512E417; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bomUofBMb7Ev; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9256D12E413; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x233.google.com with SMTP id tz8so38710973obc.0; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=3HWNelOn/aZM5Jz2rLAKmqu/RHPN6rS6eZXV5r8p4aw=; b=vJ0544APfraPe68RtY3EF1GWexQsGWyAS33KSkVbHsvI2ISDoiawbRmhnLaC2I/a6W PGIUZkH3rOUlFvOfso0WOMzjH0dYHb4XdV5YM3ATLMjt8d5W1AHW8BJMRseyMzaXk2dA BIRZAkTMiAmo3GEGtlapKhb0VVeKUPd5J+B3z72v+HPFnSait2mFvuR03+nkiC2tBOvK odbKGwdRP1UQGLXnUwHxHUptF5Z1KkOsBcltN4yUicq63a+Ilj6/2MzDQwGrcknbKbCT Weqze9CQvKfW8Ax8otRqTrpAybr8T0S6Nr7UvtvNS0TeXeEudRcCj7uzJlBRfI0c9GTJ am7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=3HWNelOn/aZM5Jz2rLAKmqu/RHPN6rS6eZXV5r8p4aw=; b=nIJWDf2Prd6Loa7krQmt5H+ye2JHz10rj+LAQ6o5YjaT15v3WrkN446Ja7sKW8PHLz vRNxqd/Hqgrfz25LWyS3XQCz8sD46tEQqt6xR+NB8ynPDwO4lLcntEk3iZmHDX9P2TgH EHOKa77ug/X+10mFnEyUjvJJqb2pMBMWcFgNWNoX+So8jXgwx9Mv9vEfTmXu3pNdKcPA r5a6we6iRWBricNItDoUJcYSwsAkDocsIPdehGPfT3No/gjXJaPuqMo7itCw8fGCrwPj N1rsiL/KBA2qjtOp2jURnbOoUcfFU2lBqRSYZk46CXIWQZIelicNn9ZsDpb3ZqJe1ecf cbiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV7rnqfBHTjC/RTQQTl5H2wkOBQPKHVkPOlf6xTxDlCRWnL+igQWnZvYpVxzCLdfgvPjuu2SRZgMPkdKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.62.6 with SMTP id u6mr5735583oer.35.1460574500941; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.115.168 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.115.168 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9D8BEF2-0381-471C-BC41-82D116036239@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdhJFuaUSRVgNNm66jbMeZ23vaESAaem21J5h6zSvCEqw@mail.gmail.com> <C9D8BEF2-0381-471C-BC41-82D116036239@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:08:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcQsfo+KW+1pcGyO=-8ycLeyLP0RM6MY=iwn6TqFmwkEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015384be4bffd8053062808f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/_s7wrbiYb0uaJ52MkWXqzaRJ3SQ>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Apr 2016 19:08:23 -0000

Sounds great.   Do submit it.    Version numbers are cheap.

Thanks,
Alia
On Apr 13, 2016 12:39 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Alia,
>
> Thanks for this review! Please see inline.
>
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 4:06 PM, akatlas@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > First, thanks very much to the authors Manav, Carlos, Sam, and Trilok
> for their work on this document.
> >
> > As is customary, I have done my AD review before requesting IETF Last
> Call.  In this case, I have a couple minor comments that I would like the
> authors to address during IETF Last Call.
> >
> > In addition to IETF Last Call, I am requesting a Routing Directorate
> review.  I expect that both of these will conclude by April 27 and that
> this draft will be on the IESG telechat on May 5.  During this period, it
> is critical that the authors be extremely responsive and update the draft
> as appropriate so that the process runs as smoothly and quickly as feasible
> >
> >
> > Minor comments:
> >    1) Draft references RFC 4970 instead of RFC 7770 which obsoleted it.
> In addition to updating the reference, please reread RFC 7770 and be
> certain that there are no surprises that can come from multiple RI LSAs
> being allowed or other nuances.  I personally don't see any right now.
>
> Great point. Working copy updated. I also re-read RFC 7770 and I do not
> think there’s any additional considerations or implications.
>
> >
> >    2) In Sec 2.1, it specifies "Routers that do not recognize the S-BFD
> Discriminator TLV Type MUST ignore the TLV."  I don't think that this
> document can mandate what routers that don't implement it do.  I went back
> through RFC 7770 and don't see any description *sigh* for the expected
> router behavior if a sub-TLV isn't recognized.  This might be a very useful
> errata to add to RFC 7770 - unless someone else can find where the behavior
> is specified.  For this draft, please think about what "ignoring the TLV"
> means and what routers that do not know about this draft are likely to do -
> and then update this sentence.
>
> True, this doc cannot say “MUST ignore”. However, RFC 7770 S2.3 already
> says “Unrecognized types are ignored.”
>
> I will change
> "Routers that do not recognize the S-BFD Discriminator TLV Type MUST
> ignore the TLV.”
> to:
> "Routers that do not recognize the S-BFD Discriminator TLV Type will
> ignore the TLV [RFC 7770], and therefore will not learn S-BFD
> Discriminators via OSPF.”
>
> Changes made in our working copy, and can submit when signaled.
>
> Feedback most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> — Carlos.
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Alia
>
>
>