Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 01 August 2015 21:55 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DFE1A6F10; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kvtRVyEaGwN9; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21B431A6EF0; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21805; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438466097; x=1439675697; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=4kVJfQ0PKx1HqaZ1FwtQxOvf9z27dmxtDwWDn/IZJ74=; b=VjypcPg0r8QmkTWyEijW9JRATPL8/3QHTdz5ebHVjH+rtsx2a3G18/u3 z6lwBMn5YcdQ0mH4Y0qRxf2R9m7UzhlcGaSpkg32+Xb50faOHIGj1u/T4 aZhoO6K3SBcHxmXDNCYQaqX8kpQT8JjpExpiIVJDuV/uKPBH771z7cNqj w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C6AwCBP71V/5xdJa1RChkBAYIyTVRpBoMduScJggaFdwIcgQY4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAQMjZgIBCA4DAQIBAigDAgICHxEUAwYIAgQBEgmIEAMSDbEGkA0NhTUBAQEBAQEEAQEBAQEBARuLT4JPgVwFDToYgmmBQwWRd4MCAYpggWuBR4QgjDKDS4NkJoN9bwGBBUKBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,592,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="16968006"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2015 21:54:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t71Lstol001268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 1 Aug 2015 21:54:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 16:54:54 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (173.36.12.83) by xch-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 16:54:54 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.80]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 16:54:54 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, shraddha <shraddha@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06
Thread-Index: AQHQyv0RUgMixNXA9027FbXFLKfCEp331PaA
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 21:54:53 +0000
Message-ID: <D1E2B485.2A028%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rfvc6NNO6cgX35Bo=+zA4K6dhL5bKkzL8ttuvCFxB2JSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfvc6NNO6cgX35Bo=+zA4K6dhL5bKkzL8ttuvCFxB2JSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1E2B4852A028aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/nhIAxY_KjUhZ1s2vwITO7DAhU8o>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06
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: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 21:55:00 -0000
Hi Alia, Thanks for the review. From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:22 PM To: "draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, shraddha <shraddha@juniper.net<mailto:shraddha@juniper.net>> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 before asking for IETF Last Call. First, thank you very much for your hard work on this draft. It is lovely to see needed work move quickly and have numerous interoperable implementations. I do have a number of minor issues on the draft - but all on the level of clarifications. Therefore, I have requested that IETF Last Call be started. Assuming good responsiveness on the part of the authors, a revised version that addresses my concerns can be on the IESG telechat on August 20. I do note that there are 6 authors on this draft. Please provide input - since I know that you all well aware that the limit is normally at most 5. One can identify a primary editor or two. This isn't pure process; the more authors listed on a draft, the longer it takes to handle AUTH48 - particularly when some are not as involved and do not respond rapidly and with full context. I make no judgement about the authors of this draft - who have clearly moved from pulling out the idea into a stand-alone draft and had a number of different implementations. We’ve already made one pass on pruning the authors and since we are only one over, I’d like to leave it as is. My review comments are below. Thanks again for your hard work in getting this far! Minor issues: 1) On p. 6, it says " AF Address family for the prefix. Currently, the only supported value is 0 for IPv4 unicast." Please clarify VERY CLEARLY why this restriction exists. Not everyone reading this will be familiar with support for IPv6 in various protocols and we are really finally heading towards lots more IPv6. I will clarify. There are basically two reasons. The first is that we really didn’t want to specify more than was necessary in this base document. The second is that we have OSPFv3 for IPv6. So, you may ask why we have this at all. The reason is that we didn’t want to rule out extension of OSPFv2 completely. 2) On p. 6 and 8.: "The Instance field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs. A maximum of 16777216 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs may be sourced by a single OSPF instance.": This doesn't really give normative behavior. I assume that what you mean is that the advertising router has a number space for the Instance which has no significance outside of that advertising router and can have arbitrary values allocated from it. Each of these LSAs is identified uniquely by its Instance number. Please provide good text for what MUST be done and indicate that the value may be used for tie-breaking ("In this case, the Extended-Prefix-TLV in the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA with the smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. ") and there's an assumption that the values will be allocated from smallest to largest. I will clarify this. However, I don’t want to specify any assumption about allocation. 3) On p. 6 for the Route Type, it would be useful to have a reference to where these type values are pulled from. I'd also like to see some text about whether other values could be valid in the future and how so. For instance, I'm assuming that you are basically pulling the values from the OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#ospfv2-parameters-5) - so perhaps you could simply say so or clarify for what are valid values. Is there an example of referencing an IANA directory? I could also reference RFC 2823 and RFC 3101 directly. 4) On p. 9: For Link-Type, could you also put a reference to the IANA registry? I'd prefer it to be clear that if (unlikely as it seems) there were a new Link-Type added, it would apply here too. Sure. We’ll do the same. 5) In Sec 5, pleaes add an RFC Editor note that Section 5 will be removed upon publication. That's the intent wtih RFC 6982. Thanks for including this section in the draft. If the information wants to move to the OSPF WG wiki, that would give it a place to survive after this draft is submitted to the RFC Editor. Ok - I need to hunt down this OSPF Wiki we talked about in Prague as well. Nits: 6) In Sec 2, there's an "e.g., mapping server deployment". Could you add a reference? This tells me nothing... Sure - it is the segment routing architecture document. 7) In Sec 2, In the packet format, could you clarify Opaque type = 7? Same for on p.8 for opaque type = 8 ? Sure. 8) Since you are creating the registry for the TLVs, please clearly state that value 1 is being used earlier - instead of "suggested value" as on p.9 Sure. Thanks, Acee Regards, Alia
- [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-a… Alia Atlas
- Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-li… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-li… Alia Atlas
- Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-li… Alia Atlas
- Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-li… t.petch
- Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-li… Acee Lindem (acee)