Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Les,

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:13 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Yoshi -
>
> Thanx for the review.
> Replies inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 1:05 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
> >
> > Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
> > Review result: Ready with Nits
> >
> > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> > team's
> > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
> > IETF
> > discussion list for information.
> >
> > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> > [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this review.
> >
> > Summary: Ready with Nits
> >
> > 1: The TLV formats in the draft look identical with RFC7471 except the
> value in
> > Type field.
> >      it would be better to clarify this points so that the readers who
> are
> >      familiar with RFC7471 can interpret them easily. I am also
> wondering if
> >      the format figures of TLV are necessary when the same figures are
> already
> >      presented in RFC7471.
> >
>
> [Les:] The draft says:
>
> Section 2
>
> " TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]."
>
> Then in each subsequent sub-section 2.x  both RFC 7471 and
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis are explicitly referenced.
>
> The TLV formats need to be presented here since these are the BGP-LS
> encodings, which are similar to but NOT identical to the IGP specific
> encodings (for example IS-IS encoding uses an 8-bit type/length).
>

Right. But, but in case of OSPF, I think the format will be identical
except the type field value.
I just thought if you add one sentence to clarify the formats happen to be
the same as 7471, it could be a small benefit for OSPF users.
But, this is not a strong opinion.


> > 2: There is no guidance for default values such as measurement interval
> in
> > the
> > draft. If these values should also be inherited from other draft, it
> should be
> > stated.
> >
> [Les:] This is not within the purview of this draft. All this draft is
> doing is defining the encodings for the BGP-LS advertisements which are
> essentially copies of what the IGPs are advertising.
>

Does it mean when an IGP advertises these metrics at 10 sec interval, the
BGP-LS will be advertised at the same interval?

Thanks,
--
Yoshi