From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> Sent: 15 January 2024 20:30 Hi Tom,
Since this YANG model describes the RFC 8362 encodings, those encodings should be the primary reference all the leaves and identifies. <tp> Acee I think that you are wrong. The historian in me knows that given a choice or primary or secondary sources, the secondary can only get it wrong; you always go back to the primary (unless or until the primary is replaced which is not the case for most of the definitions here). > On Jan 13, 2024, at 07:42, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of The IESG > <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> > Sent: 11 January 2024 14:35 > <snip> > <tp> > Most of my comments on this I-D from August are addressed but I still have > some doubts. > > p.11 identity nu-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; RFC5340 A.4.1.1 would be a > better reference Agreed. However, I think including both references would be good since RFC 8362 includes the flags in TLVs > > identity la-bit > here RFC8362 changes the meaning so I think the reference to RFC8362 is ok Actually, for the LA-bit, both references would be good. > p.11 identity p-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; RFC5340 A.4.1.1 would be a > better reference Same as nu-bit. > p.12 identity dn-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; RFC5340 A.4.1.1 would be a > better reference Same as nu-bit. > p.12 identity e-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; in fact, this one defeats > me. It is present in a diagram, s.3.6, but with no explanation. Reading > RFC5340 it could be A.4.3 but I am not sure If one is familiar with OSPF, it is clear. For AS External and NSSA metrics, there are type 1 and type 2 metrics. Type 1 are simply added to intra-area metric to the originator. Type 2 metrics are considered greater than type 1 metrics. This hasn’t changed since RFC 1247 - just the OSFPv3 and OSPFv3 extended-LSA encodings. Since the description is brief, I’ll include it in its entirety. <tp> Indeed I learnt about Type 1 and Type 2 25 years ago and know them well; but in the modern context of SR, IPv6, OSPFv3, extended LSA etc I did not recognise the terse allusion. And why do you not include the AC bit defined in RFC9513? Tom Petch Thanks, Acee > > Tom Petch > > > > Abstract > > > This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF YANG > model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) > Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362. OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide > extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 5340. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/ > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
