Re: [OSPF] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt> (OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 10 December 2014 23:07 UTC

From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:07:08 -0000
Message-ID: <018b01d014ce$06215290$1263f7b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AdAUzgRtbjhNr7FGTP+6Nt7S5T90Cg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/edeDHoRK3Vt5KJciT4HCUZbDxf8
Cc: ospf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt> (OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk

All,

I reviewed this document as AD and found a few small points that I have asked
the authors to address as IETF last call comments.

Adrian

===

Please look for places where you have "proposed" something and change
that to "defined".

---

It would be good to include a reference for encoding floating point
integers. The usual is (I think)...

        IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
        Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8).

---

Section 4.2.5

   Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of a static (non
   dynamic) offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured
   delay value, to facilitate the communication of operator specific
   delay constraints.

On the third reading I got it! I'm slow (I have a high delay :-)

The point here is that the measured value and the static value are added
together and the sum is transmitted in this field. I'd suggest...

   Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of a static (non
   dynamic) offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured
   delay value before encoding into this TLV, to facilitate the 
   communication of operator specific delay constraints.

Similarly in 4.2.6.

---

4.2.7 appears out of sequence. But since it repeats the content of 
4.2.4 I suggest you merge them and talk about the plurality of fields.

---

Section 7

"Sections 6 and 7 provide" should be 5 and 6.

---

Section 10

   "As per (RFC3630), unrecognized TLVs should be silently ignored"

There has been confusion about what 3630 means by "silently ignored".
In particular, some enthusiastic implementations thought this meant the
TLVs should be stripped from the LSA before it is propagated. I think it
is worth the few words to explicitly state that this is not the case.

---

Section 13

RFC 4203 is used in a normative way, please move it to the other 
section.

[OSPF] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-exte… The IESG
Re: [OSPF] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-… Adrian Farrel