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

Les,

Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see in-line..

I have some comments in this draft.

---Introduction
----------------
---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. "

<Shraddha> Will work on the rewording of introduction section.

Section 2
---------------

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

<Shraddha> I think this section is needed to explicitly imply that the tags are used for TE as well as non-TE applications.

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.

<Shraddha> This was suggestion from Acee to restrict it to prevent the RI LSA overflowing. Since we have multi instanced RI-LSA this restriction can be removed.
                       Will update the draft for this.

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

<Shraddha> OK

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.

<Shraddha>Use cases section gives information on the motivation of the draft and looks necessary to be in the draft sections than moving it to appendix.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:02 PM
To: OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org); draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00

I have some comments in this draft.

Introduction
----------------
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.

   Les

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf