Hi Pete,
On 12/3/18, 2:19 PM, "Pete Resnick" <[email protected]> wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Issues
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-19
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-12-03
IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-16
IESG Telechat date: 2018-12-06
Summary: I think this document is ready, and I certainly don't want to
stand in
the way of it moving forward, but I do want to note the following issues I
mentioned in my previous review. The document editor notes that similar
sorts
of things have been done in previous OSPF document without problems, but
they
still make me nervous. Thanks to the editor for quickly addressing all of
the
issues in my previous review.
Major/minor issues:
In 3.1:
Length: Either 3 or 4 octets
SID/Label: If length is set to 3, then the 20 rightmost bits
represent a label. If length is set to 4, then the value
represents a 32-bit SID.
This sort of mechanism worries me. The Length is not a length, but rather a
flag. This means you can't have a general parsing implementation, as it
would
treat the field as a length and get the left-most 24 bits when the value is
3.
Even if the implementation chooses the right-most 24 bits, it's only
supposed
to take the right-most 20 bits and mask off the extra 4 bits, which are not
required to be zeroed. I understand that similar things have been done
before
without problems, but this seems like an implementation accident waiting to
happen.
In 7.1 and 7.2:
When the V-flag is set (making SID/Index/Label is a label), the value is in
the
low 20 bits of the first 3 bytes of the field (i.e., bits 4-23). As with the
comment regarding 3.1, this seems like it has the potential for
implementation
problems. You could explicitly say to mask of bits 0-3 and 24-31 (since
there
is no requirement for producing implementations to clear those bits) and
shift
the value 8 bits to the right, but this just seems like a bad way to design
this. That said, I again understand that similar things have been done
before
without problems.
While both you and I would have done it differently, the variable length SID
encoding across the three LSR protocols (OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and IS-IS) has been
implemented, deployed, and will not be changed during the IESG review (you'll
note these SR protocol drafts have been in development for over 5 years). There
is, however, an update to all three which clarifies the usage of the flags. See
(for example):
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20.txt
Thanks,
Acee (Document Shepherd and LSR Co-chair)
Nits/editorial comments:
None.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
