Re: AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ospf-scalability

Bill Fenner <fenner@RESEARCH.ATT.COM> Tue, 15 July 2003 15:49 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24939 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <13.00A6FE48@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:49:51 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 48345529 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0400
Received: from 135.207.24.16 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0400
Received: from unixmail.research.att.com (unixmail.research.att.com [135.207.26.71]) by linux.research.att.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6FG4jJh010263 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:04:45 -0400
Received: from windsor.research.att.com (windsor.research.att.com [135.207.26.46]) by unixmail.research.att.com (8.12.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id h6FFnaXs023805 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from fenner@localhost) by windsor.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.5) id h6FFnhU29826; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.5a/makemail 2.9d
Message-ID: <200307151549.h6FFnhU29826@windsor.research.att.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:49:42 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@RESEARCH.ATT.COM>
Subject: Re: AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ospf-scalability
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list

Vishwas et al,

  Apologies for dropping the ball on coordinating with Alex -- I had
some comments on this spec too.

  In the vein of other OSPF specifications, I'd like to see a list of
variables and values as an appendix.  I think this means K, Rmin, Rmax
(in (3)), high water mark and low water mark (in (4)), and n (in (5)).

  In Appendix C section (2), I'd note that the TOS/Precedence bits have
been redefined by Diffserv (RFC 2474).  I'm not sure this matters too
much, since this is only on a link so the actual values in use only need
to be agreed among the systems on the link, but it might be better to
refer to the DSCP.

  Bill