Hi John, Thanks for these comments, See below.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:32 AM, John G. Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > This WGLC collected exactly one expression of support other than from > co-authors, from [email protected]. I'm afraid we don't have > consensus to progress the document right now, or evidence that the document > has received much in the way of review. > > I do note several problems that will need to be resolved: > > 1. There are six front-page authors. There should be five or fewer, see the > final bullet of > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/Checklist%20for%20writing%20a%20BGP-related%20draft OK. > 2. The IANA section has > > IANA is requested to assign one Node Flag bit for "Layer 3 Gateway" > from the BGP-LS registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs. > > however, the registry BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix > Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs actually has no provision for registering new > flag bits. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-3.3.1.1 simply lists > them as "Reserved for future use". Possibly address this by requesting IANA > to create the registry within the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State > (BGP-LS) Parameters" and allocate your bit from there. You would also have > to make your draft update RFC 7752. I've cc'd Adrian and Hannes, the > Designated Experts for that group of registries, in case they have further > comment. Creating a registry in this document seems like the appropriate course of action. > 3. Not precisely a problem, but are there implementations of the draft? As > you know, if there aren't, by IDR WG convention we will stall until we do > have some, even if we do complete a WGLC. I am not aware of any right now. > 4. I'd kind of prefer you remove tables 1 and 2. They aren't authoritative > and table 1 is actually obsolete. OK. > 5. Section 3.3.1.1 has > > +----------+----------------------------+-----------+ > | Bit | Description | Reference | > +----------+----------------------------+-----------+ > | 'G' | Layer 3 Gateway Bit | [RFC7176] | > | Reserved | Reserved for future use | | > +----------+----------------------------+-----------+ > > I think the reference must be wrong. RFC 7176 ("Transparent Interconnection > of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS") doesn't include the string "gateway" > at all, so if the ref is correct, it's at best obscure. > > But in any case, per #2 above, probably this is not the right table in the > right place. I'll see what I can do to improve this. > 6. I have read section 3.3.1.2 several times and don't understand it. Other > than "what does it mean?" I wonder what the intent of table 6 is. It kind of > resembles the table in section 5.2 of RFC 7176? I'm confused. I think Section 3.3.1.2 is enumerating TRILL link state information that can be transported in BGP-LS using the opaque node attribute TLV as of some point in time (perhaps when the -00 draft was created). However, additional possible TRILL link state information has been specified since [RFC7176]. In any case, I think this subsection should be recast in a more general way and the Table 6 should probably be eliminated. > 7. Is this a typo? > > o Does any fixed length TLV correspond to the TLV Length field in > this document ? > > Do you mean "every"? I believe it should be "every". > 8. In this: > > opaque TLV support the range of ISIS-TLV/SUB-TLV shown in Table > 3, and link TLVs support the range in Figure 8. > > there is no figure 8 in the document. I think it is just trying to say that you check that items of link state information are inside the right envelope; but, it is not very clear and refers to Figure 8 when it probably means Table 7. I'll try to improve it. > 9. I don't know if the security section will fly, but then again I don't > know if it won't. Once the doc is revised to address the above I'll ask the > Sec Dir for a review. OK. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > Thanks, > > --John > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 3:33 PM, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > An IDR working group last call has been requested for > draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-03. Please reply to the list with your comments. As > usual note we cannot advance the draft without participation from the group. > Please get your comments in before November 3, 2017. > > Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dls-2Dtrill-2D03&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=YQIHKfaMAUOrl3hLdgq6nw1PcXtmtpICF3XlGCVFreQ&s=6fwhGLRqq-HwpYC9ZJyaR60B_kl8F-1BV0Gd5B7XPl8&e= > > Thanks, > > --John > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=YQIHKfaMAUOrl3hLdgq6nw1PcXtmtpICF3XlGCVFreQ&s=1Hl0Amflm0UF1PXY9sJgdlNF1i0jXiSk9xReayA2hF0&e= > > _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
