Subject: [Idr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:58:59 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicely written; thanks.  And a particular thanks for the clear guidance
to the DEs in Section 5.1.  I might want to point to this from 5226bis,
which means this might get me off my bum on that.

A minor editorial thing in the Introduction:

   The contents of a Link State Database (LSDB) or a Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED) has the scope of an IGP area.

I don't know what that means.  Might it be this (and might this be a
clearer way to say it)?:

NEW
   The contents of a Link State Database (LSDB) or a Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED) are only visible within their IGP area.
END

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:31 +0100

Hi Barry,

>    Database (TED) are only visible within their IGP area.

Hmmm. Who can look at these DBs is moot: everything is available at a price.

The intent is that the content only refers to information about the resources in an IGP area. That is, it is the content that is scoped to the area.

Happy to try another form of words, just that the text n the -D currently seems cleaner than what  just wrote to explain to you.

Thoughts?

A

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:26:36 -0400

> Hmmm. Who can look at these DBs is moot: everything is available at a price.

Ah.  I was confused because the next sentence talks about wider visibility.

> The intent is that the content only refers to information about the resources
> in an IGP area. That is, it is the content that is scoped to the area.

Does this work, then?:

NEW
   The contents of a Link State Database (LSDB) or a Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED) are only about the resources within their IGP area.
END

b

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:05 +0000

On 10/14/15, 3:26 PM, "Idr on behalf of Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]

>   Database (TED) are only about the resources within their IGP area.

True - but it doesn’t capture the necessity for BGP-LS for these
databases. 

I agree with Adrian - any SNMP client (and soon NETCONF client) can “see”
the databases from outside the area as long as there is reachability. If
“has the scope of an IGP area.” is confusing, one could say “is only
advertised within an IGP area.”e

Thanks,
Acee

>
>b
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idr mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:31:08 +0100

Yup.

Maybe s/are only about/only describe/

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry
> Leiba
> Sent: 14 October 2015 20:27
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Jie Dong
> Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-12: (with
> COMMENT)
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:38:01 -0400

> advertised within an IGP area.”e

That would be clearer to me.  Adrian's "only describe" would work too,
though the two suggestions mean different things, so that has to be
sorted out.

Anyway, you guys have all the input you need from me now, I think.
It's a minor comment, so do what you think is best, and thanks for
considering my comment.

Barry