Hi Eric,
On 07/06/2020 17:21, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-13: 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-te-link-attr-reuse/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have a single non-blocking
COMMENT (question):
In section 5, if the SABM and UDABM lengths are either 0, 4 or 8, then I wonder
why the "SABM Length" and "UDABM Length" fields are 8 bits. In control plane,
using 2 or 3 bits length would not have a performance impact and would allow
for a longer Reserved header field.
We did not limit the size at the beginning, but later due to limited
size of ISIS TLVs we limited it to 8 bytes to leave some space for the
attributes itself (draft-ietf-isis-te-app). We wanted to keep the
consistency between ISIS and OSPF which also helps BGP-LS. 8 octets
should be future-proof enough (64 apps).
We keep the byte for the SABM and UDABM lengths to avoid problems of
existing implementation.
thanks,
Peter
I hope that this helps to improve the document,
Regards,
-éric
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
