Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG review of draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt beforeCCAMP LC

From: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:45:57 -0700

Several Issues:

1)It seems clear that the sections relating to IS-IS need revision on at
least one fundamental issue. The text refers to "TLV" - but in fact the
mesh group information will be a sub-TLV carried inside the proposed
capabilities TLV. This affects the wording in a number of places. I
leave it to the authors to provide a revision.

2)As to the actual "sub-TLV format" described in Section 4.2:

a)I am wondering what the value of the "name_length" byte is? Given that
there is a sub-TLV length why do we need this byte?

b)The tail-end name is specified to require a NULL terminator. This is
unnecessary, because of the sub-TLV length. It also differs in format
from the format used for hostnames in RFC 2763 - which is specified to
NOT include the NULL terminator. Was any consideration given to
consistency?

3)I would also prefer in Section 5.2 where there is a discussion of
flooding scope, that rather than specify the settings of specific bits
(the S bit in this case) that the document simply refer to the IS-IS
Capabilities draft and indicate that the procedures specified therein
MUST be followed. This will avoid any possible ambiguity as to whether
both documents describe the same behavior.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ward [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:47 PM
> To: [email-masked]; David Ward; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isis-wg] WG review of draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
> beforeCCAMP LC
> 
> All -
> 
>     Please give final review and last comments on
> draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt  as the CCAMP WG would like to LC the
> document.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
> 
> 
> -DWard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:06:42 -0400

Hi Les,

Thanks for your comments - see in line,

> leave it to the authors to provide a revision.

Done.

> there is a sub-TLV length why do we need this byte?

Because you may have multiple TE mesh-group advertise in the same TE- 
MESH-GROUP TLV.
I'll clarify that a single TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may carry more than one  
group of entries where an entry correspond to a TE mesh-group,

> NOT include the NULL terminator. Was any consideration given to

Good point indeed, the NULL terminator can indeed be removed. This is  
fixed, thanks.

> both documents describe the same behavior.

Well I'd prefer to keep it to show how these bits should be set in  
that particular context.

Thanks.

JP.