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

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)
Precedence: list

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
>      
>      
>

[Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-te… Adam Roach
Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Adam Roach
Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Adam Roach