[OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 23 February 2015 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61581A1AAA for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:32:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N8LuAquOTdFV for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945251A1A1D for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:32:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1206; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1424705538; x=1425915138; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ndUL/j1orp5Uwp2FhBm8ABZnaywpdJaDPreal/buXyc=; b=V2Oo9hY4DSfnMvfWCyH+6C0FMoHE4ekZ7GwovR8T2sLp0ibqTyO0R1TX JZjgWlieNZytqyF0fXl6QA+grj+nXCODcLQtcS9q8F0fgtFkc65mPwRxB 43saKKOMDNAE1OW02THjeSCG6zDm/FB+kYLDrApEeRC64YZANmdpYI2tX M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,631,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="126087761"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2015 15:32:18 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1NFWHnu027929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:32:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:32:17 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org)" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00
Thread-Index: AdBPfSNCyUldFDN8QUWs01CQsfRW8g==
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:32:17 +0000
Message-ID: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EF2EE14@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/hPbTCSiLDCXBUdxUrosPaVRheN8>
Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:32:19 -0000

I have some comments in this draft.

I think the last sentence should be removed. It is providing an example of a use case - and as such is more appropriate for Section 5. 

Also, node-tags are a property of the node - not of the routing protocol used to advertise them - I would like to see this point explicitly stated. Perhaps something like:

"Per-node administrative tags are used to advertise an attribute of the node. As such they are independent of the routing protocol used to advertise them. "

Section 2

This section seems redundant w Section 1. It should be removed.

Section 3 - Last Paragraph
What is the reason for restricting the # of tags in a single TLV to 64? As OSPF TLVs have a 16 bit length field this restriction seems arbitrary.

Figure 1
The format of the ASCII art above needs to be corrected to properly indicate the field lengths.

Section 5

I would like to see this section moved to an Appendix. Since this section is not normative that would more clearly separate the normative/non-normative parts.