Subject: Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:40:26 -0500

[Took the ops-dir and the ietf@ietf lists off.]

Hi!

Joe makes a really good point below about the TLV types and RFC7770.  It
looks like we all missed it! :-(

To quote Peter (from a message in this thread), "I don't think it is good
to specify the behavior which is described somewhere else.”

Looking at -18, Section 4
(draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions) has the exact same text
[*] as Section 3 in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions.  Given that
the IANA allocation is done in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions,
and that draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions refers back to
it, then I would like to see the following changes:

(1) In draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, Section 3:

<OLD>
These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque LSA
(defined in [RFC7770]).

<NEW>
These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque LSA
(defined in [RFC7770]).  The TLVs defined below are applicable to both
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3; see also
[ID.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].

…and add an Informative reference to
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions.

(2) In draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions, replace the
entire Section 4 with:

"
Segment Routing requires some additional router capabilities to be
advertised to other routers in the area.

These SR capabilities are advertised in the OSPFv3 Router Information
Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]), and specified in
[ID.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions].
“

Even though draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions is already with the
RFC Editor, it is waiting for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, so we
can still make changes.  Please submit a new version (and send an update of
the XML to the rfc-editor).

I am scheduling draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions on the
Dec/6 IESG Telechat.  Please submit an update before the end of this month.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.

[*] Except for the OSPFv3 being specifically called out, and a couple of
other minor points.

On October 30, 2018 at 8:05:27 AM, Peter Psenak ([email-masked]) wrote:

> With respect to TLV types 8, 9, 14, and 15, they are defined in
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, and it took me a while to
figure
> out where you were getting those values and why they weren't spelled out
in the
> IANA considerations. You have a normative reference to this, which is
good,
> but you only mention it with respect to the algorithm parameters. I think
> another mention is required.
>
> I'm going to be pedantic here. According to RFC7770, when a new OSPF
Router
> Information LSA TLV is defined, the spec needs to explicitly state if it's

> applicable to OSPFv2, v3, or both. While you reference the TLVs from
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, I didn't see that either
document
> _explicitly_ states that they are applicable to both.

##PP
added the following to each of the values:

Type: X as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
aplicable to OSPFv3.

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:30:50 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

done.

Have some issues posting the new ospfv2 draft, so requested manual posting.

thanks,
Peter

On 16/11/18 22:40 , Alvaro Retana wrote:
> To quote Peter (from a message in this thread), "I don't think it is
> good to specify the behavior which is described somewhere else.”
>
> (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions) has the exact same
> text [*] as Section 3 in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions.
> Given that the IANA allocation is done
> in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, and
> that draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions refers back to
> These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque
> LSA (defined in [RFC7770]).
>
> <NEW>
> These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque
> LSA (defined in [RFC7770]).  The TLVs defined below are applicable to
> both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3; see also
> Even though draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions is already with
> the RFC Editor, it is waiting
> for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, so we can still make
> changes.  Please submit a new version (and send an update of the XML to
> the rfc-editor).
>
> On October 30, 2018 at 8:05:27 AM, Peter Psenak ([email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:
>
>> > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, and it took me a while to figure
>> > out where you were getting those values and why they weren't spelled out in the
>> > IANA considerations. You have a normative reference to this, which is good,
>> > I'm going to be pedantic here. According to RFC7770, when a new OSPF Router
>> > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, I didn't see that either document