[Took the ops-dir and the ietf@ietf lists off.] Hi!
Joe makes a really good point below about the TLV types and RFC7770. It looks like we all missed it! :-( To quote Peter (from a message in this thread), "I don't think it is good to specify the behavior which is described somewhere else.” Looking at -18, Section 4 (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions) has the exact same text [*] as Section 3 in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions. Given that the IANA allocation is done in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, and that draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions refers back to it, then I would like to see the following changes: (1) In draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, Section 3: <OLD> These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]). <NEW> These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]). The TLVs defined below are applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3; see also [ID.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. …and add an Informative reference to draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions. (2) In draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions, replace the entire Section 4 with: " Segment Routing requires some additional router capabilities to be advertised to other routers in the area. These SR capabilities are advertised in the OSPFv3 Router Information Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]), and specified in [ID.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]. “ Even though draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions is already with the RFC Editor, it is waiting for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, so we can still make changes. Please submit a new version (and send an update of the XML to the rfc-editor). I am scheduling draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions on the Dec/6 IESG Telechat. Please submit an update before the end of this month. Thanks!! Alvaro. [*] Except for the OSPFv3 being specifically called out, and a couple of other minor points. On October 30, 2018 at 8:05:27 AM, Peter Psenak (ppse...@cisco.com) wrote: > With respect to TLV types 8, 9, 14, and 15, they are defined in > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, and it took me a while to figure > out where you were getting those values and why they weren't spelled out in the > IANA considerations. You have a normative reference to this, which is good, > but you only mention it with respect to the algorithm parameters. I think > another mention is required. > > 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.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
