Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:06:52 +0800

Hi, all,

Comments inline, begin with Zhenqiang.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zhenqiang Li
13911635816
Department of Network Technology
China Mobile Research Institute
2010-04-22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

发件人： Tony Li
发送时间： 2010-04-22 14:39:23
收件人： Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [email-masked]; Jie Dong; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
抄送： 
主题： Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)

Hi Les,

> But hopefully we can comment on 01 anyway?? :-)

Of course!  ;-)

> I don't see the need for Section 3. It was interesting discussion
> material while we were debating the merits of making this a WG document,
> but I think it has drawbacks when it is included in what is intended to
> become a standards document.

Well, the point was to help document some of the field failures that we've
seen and motivate the changes.

> In the second set of three points, only the first (which documents the
> lamentable purge on checksum error experience) has value. The last two
> are anecdotal and could be translated as "there are some weird bugs out
> there". Interesting - but unnecessary. The first point could be
> mentioned in the introduction as part of the justification for the
> protocol extensions - but I think even that is unnecessary.

True, but without the background, these changes would seem like something
straight out of the Oort cloud.

Compromise: condense the text and move to the introduction?

Zhenqiang: I think we need some background.

> In Section 5 I would like to see language which says "hostname TLV
> SHOULD only be used in addition to the system ID TLV". As every IS MUST
> have a unique systemID but hostnames are optional I would prefer that if
> an implementation chooses to include the extra info in the purge that
> the system ID ALWAYS be there. (This is unenforceable of course)

Works for me.  Other folks?

Zhenqiang：Agree.

> I think there needs to be language which makes clear that the absence or
> presence of this additional information has no impact on the acceptance
> of a purged LSP as valid i.e. no changes to the operation of the Update
> process are introduced by this draft.

Can't hurt.  I'm certain that this will break some conformance testers
regardless.  

Zhenqiang: That is what we want. No changes to the operation of the Update process are introduced by this draft.

Any other comments?

Tony