Hi Alexey, On 10/13/16, 9:59 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>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. Right - We’ll include the acronym “Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID)”. Thanks, Acee > >Best Regards, >Alexey _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
