[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 22 September 2015 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 1ED851ACD57; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRDQi_nyHSkQ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D3F41A005B; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so11151374oib.3; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Y31NmhgCihHDAh/xdO0nvzwxEpF31DXQjTJ4vVffX6c=; b=pK9NFvO2p5U+ITWKEviIVQpsdZY4ZmiQ1q5F6p11HUgO8Ycul9NlNPDVRa+w3ZM9qF 4aPmCVSGZk/GmVx2pTezgmyeoNJBuFprJHf7g3rZpk0y6sxctW7T7cZiKtgCfXJuQLfP qnTRcjgxuVfxab82/CmDujlOte0YiZPmclBucaia6y3H1QQJykPT9esmFp7bxWUGcKmp 4LyLKFXVDwmzRUfC9dDzl84CjUgM/Nm8uuf+3waIgr1LsHhxm9907LEBQDubqVPvNqIP 5K/iYHCqR69SqKxokesDWNJ2Xl39pkypPdf+eiSJX0xrlOBnLNdliZCBjKik1HTFzAAe e+AQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id k10mr15956371oig.34.1442948295721; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:58:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdCDNrk+Hn0SkSx1LeRfSUHr+LLSJ8LR-k5ui6WUm0h3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d2cd69889f405205a94e6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/irldiEi9GAivPmzYmYsAlgjjsGA>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
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: <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: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:58:18 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review of
before requesting IETF Last Call.

First, I'd like to thank the working group and Shraddha, Harish, Hannes,
Anton, Zhenbin, and Bruno for their hard work on the draft.  However, this
draft has 7 authors, which is a couple over the author limit for RFCs.
has shown that it takes much longer to process a draft through AUTH48 and
other steps necessary (responsiveness to comments, agreement, etc) with a
number of authors.  While I am willing to be persuaded - on or off list -
that all 7
of the current authors are actively editing, I would prefer that a smaller
number be
selected as the active editors.

While that discussion is ongoing, here are my technical comments.  In
the draft is in good shape but could use some English grammar editing; I
have not
tried to indicate all the places where "the" is missing, for instance.

1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to
   express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers
   node properties conveyed by tags."

   What is the subject that "to express and act upon"?  Is it a router?
   Please clean up.

2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list."  Perhaps
   "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer?

3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of"  should be
   "[RFC7490] defines a method of"

4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional
   information to an IGP snooper.  It would be useful to have some thoughts
   about that.

5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that
   was mentioned in Sec 3.1

Thanks again for the hard work.  The sooner we resolve whom the editors are,
the sooner this draft can proceed.  Ideally, if updated by Thursday, it
could enter
IETF Last Call and make the IESG telechat on Oct 17.