Hi Brian, I believe we got a warning from xml2rfc when we didn’t use the pre-2008 disclaimer (since the draft “updates” RFC 2328). Thanks, Acee
On 8/8/16, 6:32 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >That's all good. With the clarifcations, I think the "Updates" is OK too. >I still don't think you need the pre-2008 disclaimer, but that's a nit. > >Thanks > Brian > >On 09/08/2016 09:27, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: >> Please see -07 version that should address the issues raised by Brian >>(except that "update" part). >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-07 >> >> Thanks. >> Jeffrey >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 5:02 PM >>> To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>; >>>draft-ietf-ospf-two- >>> [email protected]; General Area Review Team <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of >>>draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric- >>> 05 >>> >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> See one inline. >>> >>> On 8/8/16, 4:18 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Acee, >>>> >>>> Thanks, just a few points in line: >>>> >>>> On 09/08/2016 05:47, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >>>>> Hi Brian, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks much for the thorough review. Jeffrey and I discussed your >>>>> comments >>>>> this morning. See responses to your major/minor comments below. We >>>>>will >>>>> incorporate all the nits. >>>>> >>>>> On 8/6/16, 9:38 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >>>>>> like any other last call comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>>> >>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05.txt >>>>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>>>>> Review Date: 2016-08-07 >>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-15 >>>>>> IESG Telechat date: >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary: Almost ready >>>>>> -------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Major issues: >>>>>> ------------- >>>>>> >>>>>>> Updates: 2328, 5340 (if approved) >>>>>> >>>>>> If that is so, the text needs to explain what is changed in those >>>>>>two >>>>>> RFCs. Since >>>>>> this draft describes an "optional extension" to OSPF, it does not >>>>>> obviously update >>>>>> them. Is any text in those two RFCs made invalid by this draft? >>>>> >>>>> This has been an ongoing debate as to whether an RFC the augments an >>>>> existing draft updates it or whether it must actually change the >>>>> existing >>>>> behavior. In this case, the SPF calculation is modified as specified >>>>>in >>>>> section 3.6 but only when the new Network-to-Router metric is >>>>> advertised. >>>>> In RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, this cost is always zero (i.e., cost to >>>>>reach >>>>> all routers connected to the network is solely the outgoing metric >>>>> metric >>>>> or Router-to-Network metric). >>>> >>>> OK, fair comment. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I, for one, would be very happy to have consensus of precisely what >>>>> constitutes update to an existing RFC. >>>> >>>> So would many people, and since it affects all RFC streams, not just >>>>the >>>> IETF stream, I happen to know that the RFC Editor is working on >>>> definitions >>>> for both "updates" and "obsoletes". >>>> >>>>> If we don’t update the existing >>>>> RFCs, we would avoid the pre-2008 IPR language. >>>> >>>> That doesn't seem right. You only need that language if you are >>>>updating >>>> whole chunks of older text. If you take a paragraph from a pre-2008 >>>> document, >>>> change a few words, and patch it into the new document, you need >>>>either >>>> the agreement of the original authors or the pre-2008 disclaimer. But >>>>I >>>> don't think you're doing that in this case, are you? >>> >>> No. We are simply using the context of the existing SPF calculation to >>> describe the additional function. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> 3.6. SPF Calculation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During the first stage of shortest-path tree calculation for an >>>>>>> area, >>>>>>> when a vertex V corresponding to a Network-LSA is added to the >>>>>>> shortest-path tree and its adjacent vertex W (joined by a link in >>>>>>> V's >>>>>>> corresponding Network LSA), the cost from V to W, which is W's >>>>>>> network-to-router cost, is determined as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't parse that sentence. If we delete the subordinate clauses, >>>>>>we >>>>>> get >>>>>> >>>>>> When a vertex V is added to the shortest-path tree and its adjacent >>>>>> vertex W, >>>>>> the cost from V to W is determined as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> What does that mean? What does "its" refer to? Is W adjacent to V, >>>>>>or >>>>>> is >>>>>> W adjacent >>>>>> to the existing tree? Is W added to the tree before V, or is V added >>>>>> before W? >>>>>> If I was coding this, I'd have no idea what to do. >>>>> >>>>> You really do have to look at RFC 2328 to understand it. >>>> >>>> Yes, I did that in some detail when I was teaching routing a few years >>>> ago ;-) >>>> >>>>> Does this >>>>> modified text parse better? >>>>> >>>>> The first stage of the shortest-path tree calculation is >>>>>described >>>>> in section 16.1 of [RFC 2328] and modified for OSPFv3 as >>>>>described >>>>> in >>>>> section 4.8.1 of [RFC 5340]. When a vertex V corresponding to a >>>>> Network-LSA >>>>> has just been added to the Shortest Path Tree (SPT) and an >>>>>adjacent >>>>> vertex W >>>>> (joined by a link in V’s corresponding Network-LSA) is being >>>>>added >>>>> to >>>>> the SPT, the cost from V to W (W’s network-to-router cost) is >>>>> determined >>>>> as follows: >>>> >>>> MUCH better. It also clarifies the "Updates:" aspect. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Brian >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.7. Backward Compatibility >>>>>> >>>>>> This calls for a Router Functional Capability Bit assignment under >>>>>>RFC >>>>>> 7770. >>>>>> The bit number should be given as (say) TBD1 not as 0. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. IANA Considerations >>>>>> >>>>>> The IANA considerations ask for four assignments. These should be >>>>>> specified as TBD1, >>>>>> TBD2, TBD3, TBD4 and the TBDs elsewhere in the text should be >>>>>>updated >>>>>> correspondingly. >>>>>> Also, please reference the relevant RFCs (7770 and whatever defines >>> the >>>>>> Sub-TLV registries.) >>>>> >>>>> 3.7 and 4 are both fixed in -06 based on comments from Alia. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, to put this on the standards track, I would really expect >>>>>>to >>>>>> see >>>>>> an Implementation Status section (RFC 7942). Has this been tested? >>>>> >>>>> The implementation of this stalled. However, it is viewed by the WG >>>>>as >>>>> straight-forward enough to advance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Minor issues: >>>>>> ------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Please check the three occurrences of lower-case "must" in Section >>>>>>3. >>>>>> Should they be "MUST"? >>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. Security Considerations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This document does not introduce new security risks. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's easy to say but hard to prove. Shouldn't you at least refer >>>>>>to >>>>>> the >>>>>> security >>>>>> considerations of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3? >>>>> >>>>> We will add the reference. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, does section 3.7 introduce a new risk whereby a rogue router >>>>>> could >>>>>> flap its >>>>>> Two-Part Metric bit on and off, causing all its OSPF peers to >>>>>> continually >>>>>> recalculate >>>>>> their routes? >>>>> >>>>> This is no more of a risk than other intra-area metric change. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jeffrey and Acee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nits: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>>>> Requirements Language >>>>>> >>>>>> It's unusual to put this at the front. The normal place is after the >>>>>> Introduction. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF >>>>>>> Contributions published or made publicly available before November >>>>>>> 10, 2008. ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is this needed? What did you copy from an old document? >>>>>> >>>>>>> 0 OSPF Two-part Metric [TPM] >>>>>> >>>>>> The abbreviation TPM is defined but not used, so why bother? Also, >>>>>> s/[TPM]/(TPM)/ to >>>>>> avoid confusion with a reference. >>>>>> >>>>>>> routes w/o considering any network-to-router costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just say "without". >>>>> >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
