Subject: [Lsr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:37:35 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: 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-isis-te-app/

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

I'm not sure whether this should really be a discuss ... I raised a similar
concern on the OSPF document as part of a discuss, and presume consistency is
helpful.

4.1.  Application Identifier Bit Mask

  UDABM Length: Indicates the length in octets (0-8) of the
       User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask. The length SHOULD
       be the minimum required to send all bits which are set.

   User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to
   Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or
   any other standards body.  It is recommended that bits are used
   starting with Bit 0 so as to minimize the number of octets required
   to advertise all UDAs.

In section 4.1, I think that the document should also add the sentence (taken
from the previous paragraph) "Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated as
if they are set to 0 on receipt."  Note, that I also think that this behaviour
is implicitly required from the description of UDABM Length.

Regards,
Rob

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:51:41 -0400

Rob:

Hi!

I just replied to your review of the OSPF document…making the same
suggestion. :-)

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On June 10, 2020 at 11:37:36 AM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker (
[email-masked]) wrote:

I'm not sure whether this should really be a discuss ... I raised a similar
concern on the OSPF document as part of a discuss, and presume consistency
is
helpful.

In section 4.1, I think that the document should also add the sentence
(taken
from the previous paragraph) "Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated
as
if they are set to 0 on receipt." Note, that I also think that this
behaviour
is implicitly required from the description of UDABM Length.

Regards,
Rob

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:56:37 +0000

Rob -

Thanx for your review.
Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:38 AM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Acee
> Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Acee Lindem
> (acee) <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
[Les:] I agree - but I think I will move/rewrite the sentence so that one instance indicates this applies to both SABM/UDABM.

   Les