Subject: [OSPF] draft-venkata-ospf-dynamic-hostname-02.txt

From: Anton Smirnov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:21:04 +0100

Hi all,
    have a comment on this draft (OK, it's not WG document yet but hope 
that's not a problem).
    The document doesn't stipulate that Dynamic Hostname TLV can be 
present at most once. Also, if implementation chooses to announce both 
AS and area scope RI LSA then it is not clear if it is allowed to 
announce different names.

    I personally would prefer 1:1 mapping between ID and router's name 
to be required but some people might disagree with me. Either way 
document should specify if multiple names are allowed or not.

    If we are to send text string then document should specify what 
exactly is understood by 'text'. Is it ASCII or UTF-8 encoding? Are 
symbols like 0x1 or 0xAF allowed?

    Thanks,

Anton
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:12:38 -0500

Hi Anton,
You have some excellent comments. I'll defer them to the draft authors.

We will be asking to make this straight-forward draft a WG document  
at IETF 71.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Subbaiah Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:15:32 -0800

Hi Anton,

Great questions. Some of them we already thought but deferred for WG
consensus.
Answers inline.

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Anton Smirnov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> present at most once.

Yes. I think it is better to keep it simple by mandating one Dynamic
hostname TLV per originator.
This saves unnecessary flooding and network bandwidth.

> Also, if implementation chooses to announce both

Again, one TLV per originator. If a router is originating at least one AS
scope LSA
(for example, an ASBR originating AS external LSAs) then it should generate
AS scope
Dynamic hostname TLV. Otherwise it should originate area scope TLV.

> document should specify if multiple names are allowed or not.

We will include some wording on these in the next revision of the draft.

> symbols like 0x1 or 0xAF allowed?

We discussed and deferred this for WG consensus.
I prefer ASCII text unless there is a strong reason for UTF-8 or UNICODE.

Thanks for the review.

Venkata.