Subject: [mpls] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-05

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:55:32 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-05
     Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS-TE
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 24-April-2014
IETF LC End Date: 06-May-2014
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standards RFC

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
     I believe that the description of when to use this EAG is slightly 
misleading.  The text says that EAG is to be used "when a node wishes to 
advertise more than 32 colors for a link."  I believe it is more 
accurate to say that it is to be used "when a node wishes to advertise 
colors for a link which are not represented in the first 32 bits of the 
color mask."  The node may only wish to advertise colors 7 and 60, but 
that will require the EAG.

Nits/editorial comments: N/A

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:06:56 -0400

Hi Joel-

  Thanks for the review.  On your minor issue:
---
 I believe it is more accurate to say that it is to be used "when a
node wishes to advertise colors for a link which are not represented
in the first 32 bits of the color mask."  The node may only wish to
advertise colors 7 and 60, but that will require the EAG.
---

I see your point, but I'm having trouble coming up with obvious text.
Deciding which colors are represented in a color mask is up to the
operator, which means it would have to say something like

"when a node wishes to advertise colors for a link which the operator
has defined to be outside the first 32 bits of the color mask".

but this would be the only use of 'color mask' in the document, and
it's not one I've seen used in any other docs around link coloring.

The whole sentence you refer to is:

" The EAG sub-TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups
when a node wishes to advertise more than 32 colors for a link."

If I rephrased it as

" The EAG sub-TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups
when an operator wants to make more than 32 colors available for
advertisement on a link"

would that do it?
s/wishes/wants/ while I'm here.

eric

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> advertise more than 32 colors for a link."  I believe it is more accurate to
> say that it is to be used "when a node wishes to advertise colors for a link
> which are not represented in the first 32 bits of the color mask."  The node
> may only wish to advertise colors 7 and 60, but that will require the EAG.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Joel Halpern Direct <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:02:27 -0400

What if instead of "on the link" it is simoply "in the network".  This 
recommend the use of EAG whenever the operators is using more than 32 
colors across the link.  It thus actually better aligns with avoiding 
the under-claiming issue by suggesting that operators should use the EAG 
if they have more than 32 candidate colors.

Yours,
Joel

PS: substituting wants for wishes is probably reasonable.  If we talk 
about network-wide you might even be able to us "intends".

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:28:22 -0400

Works for me.
So

" The EAG sub-TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups
when an operator wants to make more than 32 colors available for
advertisement in a network"

I had gone back and forth with Adrian on language to scope this to a
single LSDB, so as to avoid the discussion of signaling EAG desire in
RSVP or PCEP.  I don't want to add that sort of disclaimer here too,
as it makes the sentence clunky and unweildy.

eric

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Joel Halpern Direct
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> recommend the use of EAG whenever the operators is using more than 32 colors
> across the link.  It thus actually better aligns with avoiding the
> under-claiming issue by suggesting that operators should use the EAG if they
> have more than 32 candidate colors.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> PS: substituting wants for wishes is probably reasonable.  If we talk about
> network-wide you might even be able to us "intends".
>
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:39:27 -0400

That works for me.
Thank you Eric.
Yours,
Joel

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:47:26 -0400

Done and posted as -06.

Chairs: This latest posting has all of the reviews, nits and other
changes that have been requested.  It is ready for publication.

eric

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> colors
>>> about
>>>>> accurate
>>>>> to