Re: [OSPF] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: (with COMMENT)

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Alia, 
Version -10 is posted including all of the IESG comments.
Thanks,
Acee 

On 10/13/16, 10:18 AM, "Alia Atlas"  wrote:

>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) 
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Alexey,
>>
>> On 10/13/16, 9:59 AM, "Alexey Melnikov"  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" 
>>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

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

Re: [OSPF] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alia Atlas]

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)  wrote:

>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> On 10/13/16, 9:59 AM, "Alexey Melnikov"  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"  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

Re: [OSPF] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov]

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"  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

Re: [OSPF] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: (with COMMENT)

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Alexey, 

On 10/13/16, 5:40 AM, "Alexey Melnikov"  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].


Thanks,
Acee 




>
>

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