Hi Rob, Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
The updates as discussed below will be included in the next update. On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 3:14 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > I support Lars's discuss. > > I don't really object to publishing this document, although I don't really > like > the fact that the LAG member information that is being propagated isn't of > any > relevance to OSPF routing itself, and OSPF is being used only as a generic > information propagation mechanism. However, I acknowledge that horse has > probably bolted long ago. > KT> What we are doing here is adding more information for use in the TE-DB that is related to OSPF adjacencies. Originally, Opaque LSAs were introduced in OSPF for carrying additional info for TE-DB - even though that info was not really consumed by OSPF protocol. I can understand that "the line" may be blurred in this respect. > > One point that is not clear to me, is the configuration/management of this > feature: Is the expectation that OSPF implementations that support this > RFC > would automatically propagate bundle member information? Or would this be > disabled by default and need to be enabled through configuration? KT> There should not be automatic enablement. It needs to be enabled via configuration. We will add an Operational Considerations section to clarify this with the following text added: <NEW> Implementations MUST NOT enable the advertisement of Layer 2 bundle member links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default and MUST provide a configuration option to enable their advertisement on specific links. </NEW> > If there is > configuration associated with this feature then would it be part of a > updated > version of the standard OSPF YANG model, or is it via YANG module > augmentation > to the base OSPF YANG module? KT> I would expect the enablement to be an augmentation to the base OSPF YANG model. > If this is configurable then having an > informational reference to how/where this OSPF feature can be configured > would > likely be helpful. > KT> We do not currently have this covered. I believe this can be added in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/ - however, this is not something that has been discussed in the WG or with the authors of this document. Acee/Yingzhen, if you agree that the OSPF YANG augmentation draft can cover this, then we can add a reference in this document. Thanks, Ketan > > Regards, > Rob > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
