Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-01
Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 03:57 UTC
Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D1312EA7C; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JnqUgjIx2J7d; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x233.google.com (mail-yb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::233]) (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 A06B71288B8; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x233.google.com with SMTP id e201so68420778ybb.1; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 20:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2akMd/1xOCKG5mUlADgdU3l0ELLpZYLa/fhuaM9jgTM=; b=f+NLgtJv6+yb+Cu1FBjMi/AMa+Ue8DBXzeGJuogJmRPxN0u21RRoj3EJqZKbNlatFY yKb9i+VzBKz1RRGLgTyTlw+CULl2TAM/AkcPV8JfzMvrDTamKt3yF2cDW9otmHcrpCdj kM9OAEWF1aSZi2K2Xr4E4ReJXtTsz+VVOFrm0q6GOXePmlA3yOhheMdZQHOjcQ1ZVJv2 9c2iPfFgcNGuKxypVBuiNVh5HNDRZaHAdMYzVEAP8il3waDUK15+PIRMR1CIFnFLqKly RWNdEqdtqK/P8E+xwRvqv9VKbfdeVvKlqhe/silRe30qVCfKbIGzbcB40g7Mw55+3XA2 TWhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2akMd/1xOCKG5mUlADgdU3l0ELLpZYLa/fhuaM9jgTM=; b=WKMCBR+Es5HkFSwYp+2lTXHf22N/cwDll7StaKXd+DfECcnZCQSDr+FQiId3BsvDQU JAiQNGIBUPn52oeRvCVONr+lPx8T82haa/iShkBy6z7bpf/NYzn0EOsxLlYCWDvz722X voK/UXxQv7Y/TzflqCRhyieARKXvtopr1DclNNHTFLj/BUo6D/jQQvJKHTMNsVxedkfU rZ8Huso7/fvTgZrLscsaTxkyJ073HZyQ1JUj029vKmqFfR5nrMB3yipjgvx5pvBOEnzB 1mhthRHoTy+Jnzu3ZcwwqSGAvuSYW8ct1sXAqgOAFF05v7cZlhVzEZ4ICAzEUC2xNt0s uqew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112kdYxZxM246+vMvgeaNLXhoOZco1zAkgjEp5j3ELVmRLMin506 fnEsSGdsH6s9Zb3mqo20K0xCPK9JrQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.173.71 with SMTP id l7mr3536266ybe.144.1499227068755; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 20:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.83.16.5 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEFuwkgtYbvHQdRUJb3jmFgq3+dtfJ+ERdpgB8aeKXryVBYYTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a60975bbd3774d4cb4041ef0d005f642@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CAEFuwkgtYbvHQdRUJb3jmFgq3+dtfJ+ERdpgB8aeKXryVBYYTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 20:57:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEFuwki9KYZuNgW6u7LYU4cAGY0XCgNZ_nY3xhkmxB_weM_0fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "idr-ads@ietf.org" <idr-ads@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension.all@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="f403045eb0d0df222d05538a0043"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/eniAqKIp5Toc8Ear6osxA5xx8qk>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-01
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 03:57:52 -0000
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 <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com > 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) < > ginsberg@cisco.com> 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. >> > >
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-no… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Susan Hares