Subject: [OSPF] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:40:27 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: 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-two-part-metric/

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

Sorry for being dense, but:

3.2.  Advertising Network-to-Router Metric in OSPFv2

   For OSPFv2, the Network-to-Router metric is encoded in an OSPF
   Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV [RFC7684], defined in this document as the
   Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.  The type of the Sub-TLV is TBD2.
   The length of the Sub-TLV is 4 (for the value part only).  The value
   part of the Sub-TLV is defined as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      MT       |        0      |          MT   metric          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I don't believe the document explains what are valid values of the MT
field. Help?

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:46:15 +0000

Hi Alexey, 

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric/

You are not dense at all as this could be better referenced.

>   part of the Sub-TLV is defined as follows:

It is defined in the reference in the next sentence.

  Multiple such Sub-TLVs can exist in a single OSPF Extended Link TLV,
  one for each topology [RFC4915].

We will change the MT to MT-ID in the first figure field and add:

Each Sub-TLV will have a unique Multi-Topology Identifier and will adhere
to the advertisement rules defined in section 3.4 or [RFC 4915].

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:59:26 +0100

Hi,

> to the advertisement rules defined in section 3.4 or [RFC 4915].

That would be an improvement, thank you. Although I would use "MT-ID
(Multi-Topology Identifier)", so that one can figure out from the ASCII
art that you are talking about the same thing.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:01:35 +0000

Hi Alexey,

On 10/13/16, 9:59 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> >Please refer to
>>https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

Right - We’ll include the acronym “Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID)”.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:52 -0400

Acee, Jeffrey, and Lili,

If you could please submit a new version ASAP with this change and removing
the update to 5340, then
this draft is approved and we can move it to the RFC Editor.

Thanks & good work,
Alia

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:31:56 +0000

Alia, 
Version -10 is posted including all of the IESG comments.
Thanks,
Acee 

On 10/13/16, 10:18 AM, "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> >> >   Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.  The type of the Sub-TLV is
>>TBD2