On 10/30/18 08:05, Peter Psenak wrote: >> >> I'm going to be pedantic here. According to RFC7770, when a new OSPF >> Router >> Information LSA TLV is defined, the spec needs to explicitly state if >> it's >> applicable to OSPFv2, v3, or both. While you reference the TLVs from >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, I didn't see that either >> document >> _explicitly_ states that they are applicable to both. > > ##PP > added the following to each of the values: > > Type: X as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and > aplicable to OSPFv3.
Thanks. But s/aplicable/applicable/ :-) >> >> Section 3.2 >> >> "When a router receives multiple overlapping ranges, it MUST >> conform to the procedures defined in >> [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]." >> >> It would be useful to include a section pointer here. I think your >> referring >> to Section 2.3 where the router ignores the range? Is it likely that >> will >> change to something other than "ignore?" If not, maybe it's just worth >> mentioning that here. > > ##PP > I don't think it is good to specify the behavior which is described > somewhere else. Regarding the section, the > ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls is still being worked on and the > section may changes. We used the same text in OSPFv2 and ISIS SR drafts. > I would like to be consistent here. I can agree that copying might be problematic. But I think a section ref is good here. Finding the specific part about "overlapping" in this document is kind of like a needle in a haystack. I think it will add to overall readability. >> Section 3.3 >> >> "The originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping ranges." >> >> You specify what a router should do if it receives overlapping ranges >> above. I >> think the same text should be used here, too. > > ##PP > Here we say that the originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping > ranges. We can not specify what it should do when it breaks the MUST. I meant you have used text as to what happens when a router receives data it should ignore in other parts. I was asking to use similar text here. > > We specify what other routers should do when they receive overlapping > ranges and we refer it to spring-segment-routing-mpls draft. Again this > is the same as we used in OSPFv3 and ISIS SR extensions. I would like to > keep the consistency here. Right. But you don't re-reference that text here. Again, I'm just asking for consistent text that references the spring-segment-routing-mpls drafts. Joe _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
