Re: [OSPF] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

I see that a new version has been posted.
Can you let me know how my DISCUSS point 2 has been addressed?

Regards, Benoit
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. I agree with Tim Wicinski's OPS DIR point about IANA.
>
>      The content appears to be fine, but there are some outdated (the biggest
>      one is 5226 replaced by 8126), but its the IANA section which appears the
>      most confusing.
>
>      7.1 OSPF Router Information (RI) Registry -  appears fine
>
>      7.2 OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV Registry
>
>      This one defines the values being defined/allocated from "This Document"
>      but in Section 5, each Sub-TLV is defined in other documents, so it's
>      totally confusing.
>
> 2. It's not clear which of the following sub-TLVs are
> required/relevant/interconnected in the Encapsulation Capability TLV
>
>              0    Reserved                                  This document
>              1    Encapsulation                             This document
>              2    Protocol Type                             This document
>              3    Endpoint                                  This document
>              4    Color                                     This document
>              5    Load-Balancing Block                      This document
>              6    IP QoS                                    This document
>              7    UDP Destination Port                      This document
>
> The only hint is:
>
>        Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
>        TLVs as defined in Section 5.
>
> Zero? really, what's the point?
> Now, from an operational point of view, which sub-TLVs are required/make sense?
> Are some sub-TLVs irrelevant without others? Ex: Color without Encapsulation
> Could we have multiple identical sub-TLVs? Ex: Color
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> - Sometimes you use "Encapsulation Capability TLV" (section 3), sometimes "The
> Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV" I guess that: OLD:
>
>   The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
>
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)      |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |                                                               |
>        |                            Sub-TLVs                           |
>        |                                                               |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> NEW:
>   The Encapsulation Capability TLV is structured as follows:
>
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)      |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |                                                               |
>        |                            Sub-TLVs                           |
>        |                                                               |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> In section 7.1, should it be?
> OLD:
>      Value   TLV Name                                  Reference
>         -----   ------------------------------------   -------------
>         TBD1    Tunnel Capabilities                    This document
>
> NEW:
>      Value   TLV Name                                  Reference
>         -----   ------------------------------------   -------------
>         TBD1    Encapsulation Capabilities             This document
>
> OR:
>      Value   TLV Name                                  Reference
>         -----   ------------------------------------   -------------
>         TBD1    Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities      This document
>
> - Then there is a discrepancy between Sub-TLVs and Value in the related text
>
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)      |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |                                                               |
>        |                            Sub-TLVs                           |
>        |                                                               |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Proposal: Sub-TLVs should be replaced by "Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
> Sub-TLVs", and the following text updated:
>
>    Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
>        TLVs as defined in Section 5.
>
> - Then, reading section 5, I see yet another name: "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation
> Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2.
>
> You should re-read the document to be consistent with your naming convention,
> in the text and in the IANA sections.
>
>
> .
>