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

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

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.
>