Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-01

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Les,

Thank you once again for helping me out with all the review comments.. I
have addressed all your comments and uploaded version 02. Please let me
know if you need any more issues to take care of.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis


On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Les,
>
> Sorry once again for the late response. Please find comments inline...
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Pushpassis –
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>>
>> You have not addressed all of the editorial comments I provided – please
>> do a second pass.
>>
> [Pushpasis] I did a second pass.. But I could not locate which one(s) I
> missed out. It will be great if you list them out for me. The htmlized diff
> you attached earlier does not exactly highlight the diffs.. :( Request your
> help here...
>
>
>>
>>
>> Also, there is one substantive issue which you did not address:
>>
>>
>>
>> *<snip>*
>>
>> *Section 3.1 Last paragraph*
>>
>>
>>
>> *I recognize this statement regarding policy being used to filter what is*
>>
>> *advertised is consistent with RFC 7752. But it would also be good to
>> include*
>>
>> *a statement like:*
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Definition of such a policy is outside the scope of this document."*
>>
>> *<end snip>*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have a concern with what I proposed please let me know what it is.
>>
> [Pushpasis] I will be very happy to add the statement.  Thanks a lot for
> the suggestion.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> -Pushpasis
>
>>
>>
>> Thanx.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:58 PM
>> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-adm
>> [e-mail]; idr@ietf. org
>> *Subject:* Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-adm
>> in-tag-extension-01
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Les,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you once more for the review comments. And sorry for the late
>> reply. I have addressed all your comments in the attached draft. Please
>> review the same let me know if you have any more comments. If not I will
>> upload the draft soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> -Pushpasis
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Les,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the review comments. I will reply back addressing your
>> comments soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and regards
>>
>> -Pushpasis
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>  I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
>> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
>> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
>> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
>> see  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir .
>>
>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
>> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or
>> by updating the draft.
>>
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-01
>> Reviewer: Les Ginsberg
>> Review Date: June 27, 2017
>> Intended Status: Standards
>>
>> Summary:  The document is of modest scope - covering definition of BGP-LS
>> codepoints for a relatively new IGP attribute (Node Admin Tags).
>> While I found nothing which I would consider a major issue, there are a
>> number
>> of places where the text lacks clarity. I think addressing these areas
>> would
>> greatly improve the quality of the draft.
>>
>>
>> Major Issues: None
>>
>> Minor Issues:
>>
>> Section 1 Introduction
>>
>> The acronym LSDB is not defined.
>>
>> Figure 1
>>
>> I have a personal dislike for duplicating text/pictures from another
>> spec when that spec could simply be referenced. There are only two
>> possible outcomes:
>>
>> 1)The duplicated text is redundant (best case)
>> 2)The text differs somewhat from the original leading to possible
>> unintentional misinterpretations.
>>
>> Suit yourself on this comment - but I would prefer the duplication be
>> omitted.
>>
>> Section 2 First paragraph
>>
>> You refer to "sub-TLV" but that reference is unclear and ambiguous.
>> IS-IS uses a sub-TLV of Router Capability to advertise tags, but OSPF
>> uses a TLV of Router Info LSA.
>> What seems most relevant here is that you are defining a new Attribute
>> TLV for Node NLRI.
>>
>> Section 3 Second paragraph
>>
>> I do not know what the paragraph is trying to say, nor do
>> I know what the "TBD" in columns 4 and 5 in the following Table 1 is
>> meant to reference. If you are simply trying to describe the source
>> of the info advertised by the new BGP-LS Node attribute then you should
>> rewrite the above paragraph and in the figure below show:
>>
>> IS-IS 242/21
>> OSPF RI-LSA/10
>>
>> Section 3.1
>>
>> A description of where in the Node NLRI the area/level information can be
>> found
>> (from RFC 7752) would be helpful.
>>
>>
>> Section 3.1 Penultimate Paragraph
>>
>> As TAGs with "global" scope will be advertised by the IGP multiple
>> times (once per area/level) I assume you are asking BGP-LS advertisements
>> to reduce these multiple occurrences to a single occurrence? More
>> explicit language on that point would be helpful.
>>
>> Section 3.1 Last paragraph
>>
>> I recognize this statement regarding policy being used to filter what is
>> advertised is consistent with RFC 7752. But it would also be good to
>> include
>> a statement like:
>>
>> "Definition of such a policy is outside the scope of this document."
>>
>> Nits: Please see attached diff file with some editorial corrections.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>