Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 Week LC for: Early Code point allocation for draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 03:47:45 +0000

Hi, authors:
Sorry for late reply. I have no objection to early code point allocation.
Here is a few minor comments to this draft:
1.Abstract said
"The mechanism described is subject to policy
control.
"

[Qin]: Suggest to change Either "The described mechanism" or

"The mechanism described in this document".

2. Introduction section, 5th paragraph:

[Qin]: Is all those link attribute retrieved from LSPDB? Or some from TEDB?

Is link metric is a new link attribute defined in this document, i.e., Metric defined in section 3.3.23.?

Is TE metric a default TE metric defined in section 3.7 of RFC5305? Or referred to the metrics that is retrieved from TEDB?

3. Introduction section, last paragraph

[Qin]: "Full stop" is missing at the end of the last paragraph of section 1

4. Section 3.1 TLV format, it said:

"
Information in the new link state NLRIs and attributes is encoded in
   Type/Length/Value triplets.  The TLV format is shown in Figure 4.

....

"

[Qin]: What's the difference between link state NLRI and link state attribute since they both

use TLV format. Is the difference TLV code point or one is mandatory while the other TLV is

optional?

5. Section 3.2, last paragraph

It said:
"Table Table 1 lists the 'Identifier'
   values that are defined as well-known in this draft.

"

[Qin]: The word "Table" appears twice in the above sentence.

6. Section 3.2.1, the 1st paragraph

It said:

"
These auxiliary Router-IDs MUST be
included in the link attribute described in Section Section 3.3.2.

"

The word "Section" appears twice in the above sentence.

7. Section 3.2.1.1. last paragraph, the word "section" appears twice.

8. Section 3.2.2 Link descriptor, Section 3.2.3. Prefix descriptor

[Qin]: Why not allocate TLV code point for Link Descriptor just like local node descriptor did?

Local node is allocated with TLV codepoint 256.

Regards!

-Qin

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:12 PM
To: idr wg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] 2 Week LC for: Early Code point allocation for draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution

idr wg:

The authors of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution have asked for an early code point allocation.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution/

As the IETF 87 WG meeting discussion showed, there is good support by many implementers for this early code allocation.  Please see the IETF 87 WG meeting notes (sent to list) for discussion.  Per RFC4020, we are asking the WG for 2 week consensus call for these early code points.

The 2 week WG last call starts today and it will end on September 6th.

For those curious about the BGP parameter assignments
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml

Please comment early and often about allowing the early code point allocation.

Comments on the draft are welcome in the exchange as this draft is rapidly moving toward WG LC, but please clearly state if you want to allocate early allocation.

Sue Hares and John Scudder
WG co-chairs
________________________________

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:58:31 -0400

Qin Wu: 

Thank you for reviewing this draft.  We really appreciate it.

Sue 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:48 PM
To: Susan Hares; idr wg
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 Week LC for: Early Code point allocation for
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution

Hi, authors:

1.Abstract said 

control.

"

Is link metric is a new link attribute defined in this document, i.e.,
Metric defined in section 3.3.23.?

Is TE metric a default TE metric defined in section 3.7 of RFC5305? Or
referred to the metrics that is retrieved from TEDB?

"

..

"

[Qin]: What's the difference between link state NLRI and link state
attribute since they both

use TLV format. Is the difference TLV code point or one is mandatory while
the other TLV is

optional?

It said:

"

It said:

"

"

 

[Qin]: Why not allocate TLV code point for Link Descriptor just like local
node descriptor did?

Regards!

-Qin

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan
Hares
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:12 PM
To: idr wg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] 2 Week LC for: Early Code point allocation for
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution

idr wg: 

The authors of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution have asked for an early code
point allocation.

As the IETF 87 WG meeting discussion showed, there is good support by many
implementers for this early code allocation.  Please see the IETF 87 WG
meeting notes (sent to list) for discussion.  Per RFC4020, we are asking the
WG for 2 week consensus call for these early code points. 

Please comment early and often about allowing the early code point
allocation.  

Comments on the draft are welcome in the exchange as this draft is rapidly
moving toward WG LC, but please clearly state if you want to allocate early
allocation. 

WG co-chairs