Hi Murray,
thanks for your comments, please see inline:
On 08/06/2020 08:00, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Three main things from me:
(1) I found I'm in agreement below with some of the points raised in the posted
OPSDIR review. Please give that another once-over.
which ones in particular? I've responded to all of them, so it's hard
for me to figure out which ones do you have in mind.
(2) A grammatical point: I think nearly every instance in this document of
"which" should be replaced by "that".
I let this be checked by the English language experts :)
(3) In Section 12.3.3, I don't think it's appropriate to use MUST-type language
to constrain future document authors.
What we are saying is that if there is a router in the network that does
not understand this new way of advertising the link attributes, all
routers MUST continue to advertise it in the old way (on top of possibly
advertising new way). What constrain would this pose to future documents?
And now, my nit-storm:
Section 1:
* "... attribute advertisements - examples of which ..." -- hyphen should be a
comma * "... for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE." -- s/RSV/RSVP/ * "...
path via that link it will result ..." -- comma after "link"
fixed.
Section 3:
* Please define, or provide a reference for, "GMPLS".
fixed
Section 4.1:
* "... not inspected by OSPF, that acts as ..." -- s/that/which instead/
fixed
Section 5:
* Several changes to this paragraph suggested:
OLD:
On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized
applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of
application that is not defined as standardized one. We call such
application a user defined application. What such application might
be is not subject to the standardization and is outside of the scope
of this specification.
NEW:
On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized
applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of
applications that are not standardized. We call such an
application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These applications are
not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope
of this specification.
done.
* Is the snapshot of the current content of the Link Attribute Application
Identifier Registry needed? The rest of the document doesn't seem to reference
it. *
I believe it is useful to mention it here.
"... to advertise all UDAs." -- although it's fairly clear at this point
what a UDA is, I suggest defining it somewhere above, maybe by hanging it off
one of the other places where the full name is used such as in the paragraph
above
I thought the edited paragraph
"On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized
applications...."
defines UDAs clearly.
Section 6.1:
* Please expand "IPFRR" on first use.
done
Section 6.2:
* "All these can be used ..." -- s/All/All of/
fixed.
Section 11:
* "- e.g. RSVP-TE -" -- comma after "e.g."
* "... one need to make sure ..." -- s/need/needs/
* "... applications, where the enablement ..." -- remove comma
* "... such application - e.g. LFA." -- change to "such application. An
example of this is LFA."
fixed
Section 12.3.4:
* "Link attributes that are NOT allowed ..." -- s/NOT/not/
fixed.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
