Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: Yes
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document: it is short, clear, and will be useful. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Acee Lindem for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. A follow up on the Ericsson IPR would be welcome though if there is any update. As a side note, yet another definition for the overloaded "SID" ;-) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS ### IEEE802.1AX as informative ? The only occurence of IEEE802.1AX appears to me as informative: ` for instance a Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX]` => suggest to change the reference type to informative rather than normative. ### Section 2 ``` ... Therefore advertisements of member links MUST NOT be done when the member link becomes operationally down or it is no longer a member of the identified L2 bundle. ``` OTOH, if the information is for an external party (e.g., a controler), having information of an operationally-down link could be useful. Are the authors sure that this would never be used ? ### Section 2, length field `Length: Variable.` while it is probably obvious, it would probably not hurt to specify the units and what is included. ### Section 2, extensibility Should there be some text on how to decide applicable/non-applicable for any new link attribute TLV that could be added in the coming years ? ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
