Re: [Rift] AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 2a)

[Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

Ok, on 2nd thought I concur

-- tony

On 01/04/2021, 22:08, "Alvaro Retana" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    [External Email. Be cautious of content]


    [+ authors, WG, Shepherd, Chairs]


    On March 7, 2021 at 3:56:09 PM, Tony Przygienda wrote:

    Tony:

    Hi!

    I have some replies to your answers (inline).

    Some of your answers point me to the schema -- which is ok, we had
    agreed on it being Normative.  But it makes me wonder, what are we
    standardizing?  I know we had talked about having the schema in the
    document -- but I don't think we're on the same page as to what that
    means.  I'm starting a separate thread with the WG (not everyone plays
    attention to the review threads), so let's please talk about it there.

    Thanks!

    Alvaro.



    ...
    > > 1341 4.2. Specification
    ...
    > > 1358 Any attempt to transition from a state towards another on reception
    > > 1359 of an event where no action is specified MUST be considered an
    > > 1360 unrecoverable error.
    ...
    > > [major] "MUST be considered an unrecoverable error" What is the result of
    > > that? Should the adjacencies be reset, the rift process restarted, the
    > > interfaces shut down, etc.?? There's no other place in the document that
    > > mentions "unrecoverable".
    >
    > implementation dependent. It's pretty much the same as the protocol throwing
    > a "core" or memory corruption. From that point behavior is unspecified but we
    > want it to be considered something that should not attempt a recovery. In
    > most stark terms don't even start RIFT again but we can't mandate any such
    > thing. It's implementation guidelines.

    Why can't you mandate that?  This is *the* spec! :-)

    If you need this behavior for interoperability (by using MUST), then
    you need to specify what the behavior is.  Yes, there are probably
    internals that you can't specify, but the external behavior is fair
    game: "all adjacencies MUST be reset and not be restarted" (or
    something like that).


    ...
    > > 1371 4.2.1. Transport
    > >
    > > 1373 All packet formats are defined in Thrift [thrift] models in
    > > 1374 Appendix B.
    > >
    > > [] Can we get an index/TOC or some type of guide in the appendix to make
    > > it easier to find specific parts? For example, finding where a LIE is
    > > defined is not straight forward -- I happened to stumble on it in B.2.
    > > Another option would be to point in §4.2.2 to look for LIEPacket in B.2.
    >
    > yes, as we said there will be a more extensive intro and a reader's guide


Juniper Business Use Only