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

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:18:42 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two quick questions:

1) Why does this doc update 2328 and 5340? I would assume an TLV
extension does not need to update the base protocol.

2) Why is the OSPFv3 extension described in a separate document?

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:32:43 +0000

Hi Mirja, 

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

This is due to an additional case in the base SPF calculation (see section
3.6).  If we can agree on the precise definition of “Updates” and we
converge on Adrian’s definition, then we could remove this since it is a
backward compatible change.

>2) Why is the OSPFv3 extension described in a separate document?

We are awaiting implementations of the base OSPFv3 LSA extensions and we
don’t want to block OSPF documents with normative references. I have some
optimism that the implementations are coming next year.

Thanks,
Acee