Subject: [Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 22:12:41 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: 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-ospf-mpls-elc/

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

— Section 1 —

   In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be

Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma.

   This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
   Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to

Nit: this needs a comma after the citation.

— Section 3 —

   When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between

Nit: the abbreviation “ABR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s
no reason to include it.

— Section 3.1 —

   Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field.

Nit: hyphenate “one-octet” as a compound modifier.

— Section 4 —

   The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the
   ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].

Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF
document?

There does seem to be so much common text between that document and this one
that I really don’t understand why these (the IS-IS and OSPF signaling) were
not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 04:06:30 -0700

On May 6, 2020 at 1:12:42 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

Barry:

Hi!

> Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF

Yes, it is.  The new ERLD-MSD type is defined there for all routing protocols.

> not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home.

One of the objectives of merging the (old) isis and ospf WGs into the
lsr WG (this happened a couple of years ago) was to have common
discussions about two IETF protocols that are similar: both are link
state protocols, for example.

However, they are different protocols and deployments use one or the
other -- sometimes with religious-like fervor.

We have discussed the prospect of having a single document specifying
both OSPF and ISIS behavior, plus any corresponding BGP-LS extensions.
Among other things, that could reduce the document load...  However,
the consensus in the WG is that the result of that would be potential
confusion when it comes time to talk about the features supported or
required in a specific network.  For example, it is much clearer if an
RFP requests support for rfcxxx than if it has to be specific about
rfcxxx/Section y (where the desired protocol extension is specified),
while not requiring Section z (for the other protocol).

As a result we ended up with two documents.  As a tradeoff, I've
insisted in as much common language as possible and to process the two
documents the same time when possible.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 14:26:57 +0200

Hi Barry,

thanks for your comments. I have fixed all editorial comments.

For the last two comments, Alvaro has already taken care of.

thanks,
Peter