Acee, Jeffrey, and Lili, If you could please submit a new version ASAP with this change and removing the update to 5340, then this draft is approved and we can move it to the RFC Editor.
Thanks & good work, Alia On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
