Hi,

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 02:46 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Alexey, 
> 
> On 10/13/16, 5:40 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> >Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> >draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: 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-two-part-metric/
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >COMMENT:
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Sorry for being dense, but:
> 
> You are not dense at all as this could be better referenced.
> 
> >
> >3.2.  Advertising Network-to-Router Metric in OSPFv2
> >
> >   For OSPFv2, the Network-to-Router metric is encoded in an OSPF
> >   Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV [RFC7684], defined in this document as the
> >   Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.  The type of the Sub-TLV is TBD2.
> >   The length of the Sub-TLV is 4 (for the value part only).  The value
> >   part of the Sub-TLV is defined as follows:
> >
> >       0                   1                   2                   3
> >       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      |      MT       |        0      |          MT   metric          |
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >I don't believe the document explains what are valid values of the MT
> >field. Help?
> 
> It is defined in the reference in the next sentence.
> 
>   Multiple such Sub-TLVs can exist in a single OSPF Extended Link TLV,
>   one for each topology [RFC4915].
> 
> 
> We will change the MT to MT-ID in the first figure field and add:
> 
> Each Sub-TLV will have a unique Multi-Topology Identifier and will adhere
> to the advertisement rules defined in section 3.4 or [RFC 4915].

That would be an improvement, thank you. Although I would use "MT-ID
(Multi-Topology Identifier)", so that one can figure out from the ASCII
art that you are talking about the same thing.

Best Regards,
Alexey

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to