Hi Shraddha, Les, See one inline.
On 2/27/15, 1:29 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote: >Les, > >Thanks for the review and comments. >Pls see in-line.. > >I have some comments in this draft. > >---Introduction >---------------- >---I think the last sentence should be removed. It is providing an >example of a use case - and as such is more appropriate for Section 5. > >---Also, node-tags are a property of the node - not of the routing >protocol used to advertise them - I would like to see this point >explicitly stated. Perhaps something like: > >---"Per-node administrative tags are used to advertise an attribute of >the node. As such they are independent of the routing protocol used to >advertise them. " > ><Shraddha> Will work on the rewording of introduction section. > > >Section 2 >--------------- > >This section seems redundant w Section 1. It should be removed. > ><Shraddha> I think this section is needed to explicitly imply that the >tags are used for TE as well as non-TE applications. > >Section 3 - Last Paragraph >---------------------------------- >What is the reason for restricting the # of tags in a single TLV to 64? >As OSPF TLVs have a 16 bit length field this restriction seems arbitrary. > ><Shraddha> This was suggestion from Acee to restrict it to prevent the RI >LSA overflowing. Since we have multi instanced RI-LSA this restriction >can be removed. > Will update the draft for this. Agreed. There shouldn¹t be any controversy in advancing the RFC 4970 BIS document lifting the single LSA restriction. Thanks, Acee > >Figure 1 >----------- >The format of the ASCII art above needs to be corrected to properly >indicate the field lengths. > ><Shraddha> OK > >Section 5 >------------- > >I would like to see this section moved to an Appendix. Since this section >is not normative that would more clearly separate the >normative/non-normative parts. > ><Shraddha>Use cases section gives information on the motivation of the >draft and looks necessary to be in the draft sections than moving it to >appendix. > >Rgds >Shraddha > >-----Original Message----- >From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg >(ginsberg) >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:02 PM >To: OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org); >draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-...@tools.ietf.org >Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00 > >I have some comments in this draft. > >Introduction >---------------- >I think the last sentence should be removed. It is providing an example >of a use case - and as such is more appropriate for Section 5. > >Also, node-tags are a property of the node - not of the routing protocol >used to advertise them - I would like to see this point explicitly >stated. Perhaps something like: > >"Per-node administrative tags are used to advertise an attribute of the >node. As such they are independent of the routing protocol used to >advertise them. " > > > > >Section 2 >--------------- > >This section seems redundant w Section 1. It should be removed. > >Section 3 - Last Paragraph >---------------------------------- >What is the reason for restricting the # of tags in a single TLV to 64? >As OSPF TLVs have a 16 bit length field this restriction seems arbitrary. > >Figure 1 >----------- >The format of the ASCII art above needs to be corrected to properly >indicate the field lengths. > >Section 5 >------------- > >I would like to see this section moved to an Appendix. Since this section >is not normative that would more clearly separate the >normative/non-normative parts. > > Les > >_______________________________________________ >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 _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
