Hi Jari,
Thank you very much for your time to review the document, your valuable
discuss and comment.
My explanations/discussions are inline below with prefix [HC].
Best Regards,
Huaimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 7:36 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05: (with DISCUSS and
COMMENT)
Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05: Discuss
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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ttz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for working on this important spec.
I would like to recommend its approval, but before that I had a request
for a clarification, inspired by Orit Levin's Gen-ART review.
In Section 5.1, what specifically is the requirement regarding OSPF
TTZ/TTZID uniqueness. It just says "unique within a network". For
instance, if I have TTZID 17 under Area 0 and Area 223 among the same set
of routers implementing multiple Areas simultaneously, is that allowed?
Or are different Areas automatically different networks?
[HC]: A TTZID such as 17 is allowed under multiple areas such as
under Area 0 and Area 223.
We will change "network" to "OSPF area" accordingly in the document.
"unique within a network" SHOULD be "unique within an OSPF area".
In other words, TTZ/TTZID uniqueness is under an OSPF area.
Can you specify an algorithm or rule, or make the current wording more
precise?
[HC]: We will make the current wording more precise.
Do you think that changing "network" to "OSPF area" accordingly makes
it clear/precise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments from Orit are also worth noting.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
