Hi Greg, Changes look good to me also. Thanks, Acee On 1/31/17, 7:18 PM, "Greg Mirsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Uma, Acee, Les, et. al, >attached please find diff and the updated version. I think I've got it >right by now. >Greatly appreciate your comments. > >Regards, >Greg > >On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Had a quick look at this diff. >> >> >> >> This is about unifying the encoding parts in IGP to have a consistent >>view >> for BGP-LS encoding or keeping these separate and yet having a correct >> representation in BGP-LS for both IGPs. >> >> >> >> == >> >> With variable length bit field for Section 4.5 and fixed 4 byte value >>(as >> indicated as MUST for length) in section 4.3 - I saw a discrepancy in >> section 4.6 (BGP-LS) which is referencing section 4.3. >> >> >> >> You have multiple options to fix this: >> >> >> >> 1. Change section 4.3 to match section 4.5 (I am not sure why we >> have to have variable length for this bit field to start with in this >>case >> like rfc 7794Šbut I won¹t say much now) >> >> 2. Change Section 4.6 to represent differences in encoding section >> 4.5 and 4.3 correctly. >> >> ³Length, RTM, and Reserved fields as defined in Section 4.3.² >> >> 3. Lastly unify section 4.5 to 4.3 i.e., 4 byte value with 3 bits >> defined and 29 bits reserved. >> >> -- >> >> Uma C. >> >> >> >> *From:* mpls [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg) >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:22 AM >> *To:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Isis-wg < >> [email protected]>; >>[email protected]; >> TEAS WG Chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; TEAS WG < >> [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> Looks good. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected] >><[email protected]>] >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:06 AM >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>TEAS >> WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> thank you for your patience and apologies for missing it. >> >> Diff and the update been attached. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> AlmostŠ >> >> >> >> Please change the title of Section 7.5 to ³IS-IS RTM Capability >>sub-TLV². >> >> >> >> Please change the title of Table 5 to ³IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV >> Registry Description². >> >> >> >> The common point being since this is not exclusively for TLV 22 we do >>not >> want to say ³for TLV 22². >> >> Thanx. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 11:43 PM >> >> >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>TEAS >> WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> many thanks for your the most detailed suggestions. Hope I've it right. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> Thanx for the quick turnaround. >> >> >> >> Section 4.5 (revised text) >> >> >> >> The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is >> >> advertised in a new sub-TLV which may be included in TLVs advertising >> >> Intemediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22, 23, >> 222, and 223). >> >> >> >> The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5 >> >> >> >> 0 1 2 >> >> 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 ... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... >> >> | Type | Length | RTM | ... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... >> >> >> >> Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV >> >> >> >> Š (Remainder unchanged) >> >> >> >> Section 7.5 (revised text) >> >> >> >> 7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV >> >> >> >> IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM capability sub-TLV >> >> from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as >> >> follows: >> >> >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> | Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> | TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document | >> >> | | Capability | | | | | >> | | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> >> >> Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV Registry Description >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanx. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 10:36 PM >> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Cc:* Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>TEAS >> WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on >> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> attached are diff and the updated version -14. Would be much obliged to >> hear from you if the updates are according to your suggestions and >>address >> your comments. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Loa - >> >> >> >> The change for IS-IS encoding to utilize a sub-TLV of TLV 22 et al to >> advertise RTM capability is a better solution than the previous proposal >> and this has my support. >> >> However, there are some details as regards the proposed sub-TLV that >> should be revised. >> >> >> >> 1)Rather than use a fixed 16 bit field for the flags I suggest you >>utilize >> the encoding style introduced in RFC 7794 (see Section 2.1) which allows >> for a variable length flags field. This addresses two issues: >> >> >> >> o You need never worry that the size of the flags field will be too >> small for future extensions >> >> o It minimizes the number of bytes required to be sent >> >> >> >> The latter point is something IS-IS has always been more conservative >> about than OSPF because of the fixed size of an LSP set which can be >> advertised by a single router. >> >> >> >> 2)In the IANA considerations you have limited the sub-TLV to being used >>in >> TLV 22 only, but there is no reason to do so. This does not allow MT to >>be >> supported and it needlessly prevents use of the sub-TLV by the RFC 5311 >> extensions (however unpopular those may be). I can understand why the >> sub-TLV may not be useful in TLV 141, therefore I suggest the table in >> Section 7.5 be revised to be: >> >> >> >> >> >> | Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference >> | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> | TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document >> | >> >> +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ >> >> >> >> >> i.e. "y" for all but TLV 141 (in case the ASCII art doesn't translate >>well >> in your mailer). >> >> >> >> You should also remove the reference to RFC 5305 in Section 4.5 as it is >> too limiting. Simply referencing the IANA registry http://www.iana.org/ >> assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv- >> codepoints-22-23-141-222-223 should be sufficient. All necessary >> references can be found there. >> >> >> >> 3)An editorial correction: >> >> >> >> Introduction 3rd paragraph: >> >> >> >> s/ Althugh/ Although >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson >> >> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:02 AM >> >> > To: [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg >> >> > Cc: [email protected]; >>[email protected]; >> TEAS >> >> > WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> > Subject: [OSPF] Working group last call on >>draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time >> >> > >> >> > Working Groups, >> >> > >> >> > This is to initiate a two week working group last call in four working >> groups on >> >> > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13. >> >> > >> >> > The MPLS working group has done an earlier working group last call >>and a >> >> > request for publication has been made. >> >> > >> >> > The changes to the document were such that we decided to do a new >> >> > working group last call and extend it to MPLS, TEAS, OSPF and IS-IS. >> >> > >> >> > There are three major changes between the version of the document for >> >> > which publication was requested are: >> >> > >> >> > (1) that section 7 " One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes" has been >> >> > moved up to become section 2.1. >> >> > (2) that a sub-TLV for TLV 22 instead of TLV 251 is used to RTM >> >> > Capability when IS-IS used advertise RTM capabilities >> >> > (3) BGP-LS has been added as a RTM capability advertisement method >> >> > >> >> > A side-by-side diff between version -12 and -13 is available at: >> >> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13 >> >> > >> >> > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([email protected]), >> if >> >> > you are not subscribed to the mpls wg list, send to "your own" >> >> > working group mailing list, and we'll make sure they are posted to the >> MPLS >> >> > wg list. >> >> > >> >> > There were one IPR disclosure against this document. >> >> > >> >> > All the authors and contributors have stated on the working group >> mailing list >> >> > that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates to this >>document _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
