IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 12 August 2017 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 CD3871323A0; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 R-yH4jafKG1U; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1F3213239E; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7309; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1502558696; x=1503768296; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=mcft6hBXzL/MOnSWLSe5Z09DXfdoPnqc0N4Bq6y1liI=; b=jSCVghiYGPWudH2VsP1UEKk1I3Lek6jtgjXDDP3DVuMkY8QY5oURAiow wn6C8HlwYDVtEZZaU5FUqHztnx4//BC/0YAuXxWKkq7netKRcgegHV2Pn LQKxx7Uz09laDjQxFLrujFIue2ib+lC+TJ+IITrH4YhwzZMIjo+vekp0i c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQAQBcOY9Z/4gNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm9rgXgHjgqQDIFuiDeILIU1ghKFRwIahFw/GAECAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohRgBAQEBAyNmAgEIDgMDAQIoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQBEolLTAMVqyyCJocxDYQhA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEhgyiCAoMuAYMngleCPAaCbYJhBZ91PAKPRYR1klW?= =?us-ascii?q?MMoliAR84gQp3FUmHGnaIeYEPAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,363,1498521600"; d="scan'208,217";a="279711336"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Aug 2017 17:24:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7CHOt8u031598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:24:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:24:54 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:24:54 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
Thread-Index: AQHTExSskCOZv1Go10+AOLB+JMqb8qKA+ZeA
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:24:54 +0000
Message-ID: <D5B4B111.C0822%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdRLYXn=uaVP1PsqMpA3go5XKi=-7w5+cLLeq4AT=bO5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdRLYXn=uaVP1PsqMpA3go5XKi=-7w5+cLLeq4AT=bO5w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.21.104]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5B4B111C0822aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/bV3St47KrBZ_uiG0Vbz9qYEtju0>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
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: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:24:59 -0000

Hi Alia,

From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

As is customary, I have done another AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.  First, I'd like to thank the authors for their work and the improvement.

I have one minor issue on the IANA section.

For the current FCFS space, I think it would be better to have "Specification Required" so that there's a place to look to understand what sub-TLVs are included.
If the WG is happy with FCFS, that is fine too.

I don’t have a strong opinion here. The goal is to be stingy for the code points that overlap the corresponding IS-IS registry (with a single octet type) and more liberal here. However, we’ve never gone all the way to FCFS before and “Specification Required” would seem more in line with other IGP registries.

I'm asking for an IETF Last Call and will put this on the telechat on Aug 31.

Thanks – hope to clear some more of these “almost ready" documents prior to next IETF.
Acee


Regards,
Alia

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email