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.
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
