Hi Chris, > The WG explicitly decided it was inappropriate to have this document re-define > every "key" for every possible TLV as these "key" values are already defined > by the documents that define the TLV;
I have followed this discussion on the list. It seems to be as a side observer that folks questioning the WGLC and progressing the document do have a valid point. The document by its title and by section 8.2 creates an impression that it is a universal spec for all TLVs in respect how to implement MP-TLVs for them. Yet we clearly see from examples provided in sections 4.1 and 4.2 that what constitutes a "key" is TLV dependent and it is really cherry picked out of the number of values carried in a TLV. An example from section 4.1: In TLV 22 - 3 octets of def metric is skipped and not considered as a key An example from section 4.2: In TLV 135 - 4 octets of metric information and two bits of control information octet are skipped and not considered as a key So if an implementer takes this document and attempts to write up MP-TLV how is he going to figure out which values for all other listed TLVs in 8.2 constitute a key and which not ? IMO this document can proceed however only in respect to TLV 22 and TLV 135 and both its title and content should reflect this. Cheers, Robert On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mach Chen <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hello， > > > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > The > > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related > drafts as > > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on > special > > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the > Routing ADs. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please > > see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir > > > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would > > be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call > > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion > or by > > updating the draft. > > > > Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06 > > Reviewer: Mach Chen > > Review Date: 2024-11-11 > > IETF LC End Date: > > Intended Status: Standards Track > > > > Summary: > > • I have some major and minor concerns about this document that I think > should be resolved before publication. > > > > Comments: > > • The document is well written and easy to read it. > > > > Major Issues: > > 1. The definitions of the 'Key' for TLVs and sub-TLVs vary, and this > document > > does not specify the Key for each MP-TLV. Therefore, it may result in > > interoperability issues if implementations use different information to > > construct the 'Key.' Given Section 8.2 listed all existing applicable > MP-TLVs, > > it's essential to specify the Key for each of those MP-TLVs, either > within this > > document or in a separate document to which this document should provide > a > > normative reference. > > Hi Mach, > > I'm curious if you also followed along on the extensive discussions on > this exact issue on the LSR list or not? > > Understanding your exposure to this would help with how to address any > remaining confusion about this directly in the draft. > > The WG explicitly decided it was inappropriate to have this document > re-define every "key" for every possible TLV as these "key" values are > already defined by the documents that define the TLV; however, documenting > that choice and the reasoning better may still be necessary. > > So my question is this: were you following along with this discussion in > the LSR WG and find yourself disagreeing with the WG decision, or is this > entire topic new to you? > > Thanks, > Chris. > > > > > > Minor Issues: > > 1. The MP-TLV Capability Advertisement is defined as a node-based > capability > > rather than on a per-codepoint basis, which limits its usefulness. In > some > > cases, it may even be misleading if operators just rely on this > capability to > > assume MP-TLV support. Therefore, it would be preferable to either > remove this > > capability advertisement or redefine it to operate on a per-codepoint > basis. > > > > Best regards, > > Mach > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
