Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr-06: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 26 October 2018 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE6F130E16; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hryjxjzFHwXI; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 654A8130E0C; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.attlocal.net (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9QJeieU033501 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:40:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.attlocal.net
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, Vishnu Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
References: <154044135034.6935.9705845215648477897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A0B90E81-AA49-4758-8A04-314020862DBB@cisco.com> <42b42822-c9a0-bc34-c875-e4f38ca60d20@nostrum.com> <4556B6CE-2DB1-48B6-A2C6-242CEBE6B8FE@cisco.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <c3e71d31-8c58-6f83-9357-88a56efb2967@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:40:39 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4556B6CE-2DB1-48B6-A2C6-242CEBE6B8FE@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HGILuP1m3jV-wPY1yKEd05vY4Ow>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:40:52 -0000

Thanks!

/a

On 10/26/18 2:37 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> It’s a good point and agree. Updated the draft accordingly.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
>
> On 2018-10-26, 3:28 PM, "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>
>      On 10/26/18 12:35 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>      >      Appendix A:
>      >
>      >      >     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
>      >      >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      >      >    |                    IPv4 LSP Source Address                    |
>      >      >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      >      >    |           Reserved            |            LSP-ID             |
>      >      >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      >
>      >      What are implementors expected to set the "Reserved" bytes to?
>      >
>      > <RG> Added: “The Reserved flags MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored when received.”
>      
>      
>      Are you sure that's right? If so, it's not clear how the recipient knows
>      whether the Extended Association ID is in this format (as its use is a
>      "may"), and whether it's safe to ignore them.  I would expect this to
>      simply say that the Reserved bits are set to 0 on transmission without
>      saying anything about reception. This isn't as much for the sake of the
>      protocol (since the value doesn't really matter) as it is to help
>      implementors out.
>      
>      /a
>      
>      
>