Subject: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:40:46 -0700

Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-08-21
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-28
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31

Summary: Almost Ready

The content of this document is fine. However, I think the IANA registry stuff
is not ready.

Major issues:

I think the registrations other than for Endpoint and Color are incorrect and
should not be in this document. Certainly the "Reference" field for 1, 2, 5, 6,
and 7 should not be "This document", given that the syntax and semantics for
these values are defined in other documents. I also think that having things in
this registry which are also used by the BGP registry is asking for trouble:
You wouldn't want the references for the two registries to get out of sync.
This seems like a mess to me. Would it be possible for IANA to simply rename
the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry to "BGP and OSPF
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs", and share the registry between the
two protocols? Then have this (and other) document(s) add values to that
registry. That way, the documents that actually define the codepoints can be
put into the registry.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits/editorial comments:

In section 7.1, please add:

   [RFC Editor: Please replace "TBD1" in section 3 with the registry value
   allocated by IANA, and remove this note].

That will save them from hunting.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:58:01 +0000

Hi Pete,

On 8/21/17, 11:40 AM, "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>these values are defined in other documents.

The authors can fix these.

> I also think that having things in

We’ve already had a protracted discussion on the IANA registries. It is
not possible as BGP advertises some of the attributes in BGP communities
rather than tunnel attributes (e.g., color).

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 11:12:54 -0500

On 21 Aug 2017, at 10:58, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

>> The content of this document is fine. However, I think the IANA 
>> registry
>> stuff
>> is not ready.
>>
>> Major issues:
>>
>> I think the registrations other than for Endpoint and Color are 
>> incorrect
>> and
>> should not be in this document. Certainly the "Reference" field for 
>> 1, 2,
>> 5, 6,
>> and 7 should not be "This document", given that the syntax and 
>> semantics
>> for

For 1, 2, 6, and 7, that's easy; the drafts defining the values can do 
the registrations. For 5, the reference would be to an existing RFC that 
doesn't do the registration. I'm not sure what to do about that; perhaps 
register it here and make the reference both 5640 and this document. 
However, when someone goes to update 5640 some day, they're going to 
have to put into the IANA considerations to update both the OSPF and BGP 
registries. I'm not sure how to keep track of that. Perhaps saying that 
this document "Updates: 5640"? That doesn't seem great either.

>> the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry to "BGP 
>> and
>> OSPF
>> Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs", and share the registry 
>> between
>> the
>> registry. That way, the documents that actually define the codepoints 
>> can
>> be
>> put into the registry.
>

Yuck. I'll try not to prolong the discussion much further, but did you 
consider the possibility of having some of the attributes appear twice, 
with one saying "For BGP communities only" and the other saying, "For 
OSPF tunnels only"? What a lovely mess. :-(

> Acee

Cheers,

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:44:32 +0000

>OSPF tunnels only"? What a lovely mess. :-(

The cleanest solution is for BGP and OSPF to have their own registries.
Trying to retrofit the existing BGP registry to satisfy OSPF advertisement
requirements is not feasible.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:21:33 +0000

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 发送时间: 2017年8月22日 2:45
> 收件人: Pete Resnick
> 抄送: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> 主题: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
> >>> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like
> >>> any other last call comments.
> >>>
> >>> registry stuff is not ready.
> >>>
> >>> Major issues:
> >>>
> >>> incorrect and should not be in this document. Certainly the
> >>> "Reference" field for 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 should not be "This
> >>> document", given that the syntax and semantics for these values are
> >>> defined in other documents.
> >>
> >the registrations. For 5, the reference would be to an existing RFC
> >that doesn't do the registration. I'm not sure what to do about that;
> >perhaps register it here and make the reference both 5640 and this document.
> >have to put into the IANA considerations to update both the OSPF and
> >BGP registries. I'm not sure how to keep track of that. Perhaps saying
> >that this document "Updates: 5640"? That doesn't seem great either.
> >
> >>> This seems like a mess to me. Would it be possible for IANA to
> >>> simply rename the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs"
> >>> registry to "BGP and OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs",
> >>> and share the registry between the two protocols? Then have this
> >>> (and other) document(s) add values to that registry. That way, the
> >>> documents that actually define the codepoints can be put into the
> >>> registry.
> >>
> >> We’ve already had a protracted discussion on the IANA registries. It
> >> is not possible as BGP advertises some of the attributes in BGP
> >> communities rather than tunnel attributes (e.g., color).
> >

Fully agree.

Best regards,
Xiaohu