"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Acee – (I assume you meant “should NOT be a gating factor…”) I would NOT welcome such a document. Writing redundant specifications adds nothing of value and risks ambiguity. If existing specifications are unclear let’s fix them. I note that in all of these emails expressing concern no one has provided a single example where an existing specification is unclear or lacking. That would be helpful – unfounded claims are not.
This is a very important point. If we actually had examples of a concrete problems then the WG would have something to work on. Thanks, Chris. [as wg-member]
Les
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mach Chen <mach.chen=
40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Routing ADs <rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx>;
rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv.all@xxxxxxxx; lsr
<lsr@xxxxxxxx>; last-call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Last Call Review:
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06
Speaking as WG member:
On Nov 11, 2024, at 15:21, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Christian,
Thank you for your answer. I remain educated that LSR WG born
RFCs are only for those who implement protocol and have years of
experience in doing so.
I was obviously wrong thinking RFCs are designed to also help
operators to run and troubleshoot network problems. Or maybe say
wireshark or tcpdump developers to properly decode stuff which
shows up on the wire ...
And if this is so obvious, what is the problem for someone with
such experience to sit down and write down a BCP
dict listing what in his opinions should be used as a key for
each TLV listed in section 8.2 ? If done weeks before we would
not have such discussion.
If done correctly, this document would be welcomed. However, it
should be a gating factor on specification of IS-IS MP-TLVs.
Thanks,
Acee
Kind regards,
Robert
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 9:05 PM Christian Hopps <
chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As was pointed out on the list, anyone implementing IS-IS
knows exactly what a key is b/c it’s literally the value they
use to differentiate TLVs from one another — IOW *A KEY
VALUE*. You don’t consider 2 neighbor TLVs to be different
neighbors (and allocate a neighbor structure to store in your
DB of neighbors) based on the TLV metric value. This really
is obvious when people stop treating the discussion as some
abstraction which is again what people keep pointing out.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Nov 11, 2024, at 08:13, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> > The WG explicitly decided it was inappropriate to have
this document re-define
> > every "key" for every possible TLV as these "key" values
are already defined
> > by the documents that define the TLV;
>
> I have followed this discussion on the list.
>
> It seems to be as a side observer that folks questioning
the WGLC and progressing the document do have a valid point.
>
> The document by its title and by section 8.2 creates an
impression that it is a universal spec for all TLVs in
respect how to implement MP-TLVs for them.
>
> Yet we clearly see from examples provided in sections 4.1
and 4.2 that what constitutes a "key" is TLV dependent and it
is really cherry picked out of the number of values carried
in a TLV.
>
> An example from section 4.1: In TLV 22 - 3 octets of def
metric is skipped and not considered as a key
>
> An example from section 4.2: In TLV 135 - 4 octets of
metric information and two bits of control information octet
are skipped and not considered as a key
>
> So if an implementer takes this document and attempts to
write up MP-TLV how is he going to figure out which values
for all other listed TLVs in 8.2 constitute a key and which
not ?
>
> IMO this document can proceed however only in respect to
TLV 22 and TLV 135 and both its title and content should
reflect this.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 1:27 PM Christian Hopps <
chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mach Chen <mach.chen=40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Hello，
> >
> > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer
for this draft. The
> > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-related drafts as
> > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special
> > request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs.
> > For more information about the Routing Directorate,
please
> > see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
> >
> > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the
Routing ADs, it would
> > be helpful if you could consider them along with any
other IETF Last Call
> > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by
> > updating the draft.
> >
> > Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06
> > Reviewer: Mach Chen
> > Review Date: 2024-11-11
> > IETF LC End Date:
> > Intended Status: Standards Track
> >
> > Summary:
> > • I have some major and minor concerns about this
document that I think should be resolved before publication.
> >
> > Comments:
> > • The document is well written and easy to read it.
> >
> > Major Issues:
> > 1. The definitions of the 'Key' for TLVs and sub-TLVs
vary, and this document
> > does not specify the Key for each MP-TLV. Therefore, it
may result in
> > interoperability issues if implementations use different
information to
> > construct the 'Key.' Given Section 8.2 listed all
existing applicable MP-TLVs,
> > it's essential to specify the Key for each of those
MP-TLVs, either within this
> > document or in a separate document to which this document
should provide a
> > normative reference.
>
> Hi Mach,
>
> I'm curious if you also followed along on the extensive
discussions on this exact issue on the LSR list or not?
>
> Understanding your exposure to this would help with how to
address any remaining confusion about this directly in the
draft.
>
> The WG explicitly decided it was inappropriate to have this
document re-define every "key" for every possible TLV as
these "key" values are already defined by the documents that
define the TLV; however, documenting that choice and the
reasoning better may still be necessary.
>
> So my question is this: were you following along with this
discussion in the LSR WG and find yourself disagreeing with
the WG decision, or is this entire topic new to you?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>
> >
> > Minor Issues:
> > 1. The MP-TLV Capability Advertisement is defined as a
node-based capability
> > rather than on a per-codepoint basis, which limits its
usefulness. In some
> > cases, it may even be misleading if operators just rely
on this capability to
> > assume MP-TLV support. Therefore, it would be preferable
to either remove this
> > capability advertisement or redefine it to operate on a
per-codepoint basis.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list -- lsr@xxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-leave@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
