Hi, I have read the document and I support it for WG adoption.
I have following comments, that can be handled later (1) Section 4.1 OLD: The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630]. The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of each TLV is: NEW: As per [RFC4970], the format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630]. The RI LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of the per-node administrative tag TLV is: END Also, it should be stated - if are more than one instance of this TLV in RI LSA are allowed. - Minimum one tag must be present in the TLV - What happens if the implementation does not know the Interpretation of the tag value (2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is required to store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values. (3) Backward compatibility - few lines may be added to state that as per [RFC4970], unknown TLV would be silently ignored. Nits - Avoid using reference in abstract - Expand LFA on first use - Administrative Tag TLV or 'per-node Administrative Tag' : consistent naming through the document would be nice Regards, Dhruv On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF > advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of > remote-LFA eligibility. > > Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF > WG document. > > Thanks, > Acee > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
