Early Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14
review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14-rtgdir-early-wijnands-2017-05-17-01
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 23) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-05-06 | |
| Requested | 2017-04-13 | |
| Requested by | Acee Lindem | |
| Other Reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -20 by Mehmet Ersue (diff) Genart Last Call review of -20 by Joel Halpern (diff) |
|
| Review | State | Completed |
| Reviewer | IJsbrand Wijnands | |
| Review | review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14-rtgdir-early-wijnands-2017-05-17 | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/IJGT9niJ_-E-fcvsdb3nzX6g98I | |
| Reviewed rev. | 14 (document currently at 23) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-05-17 | |
| Review completed: | 2017-05-17 |
Review
review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14-rtgdir-early-wijnands-2017-05-17
+OSPF, Routing Directorate Thanks for the review Ice! On 5/5/17, 9:28 AM, "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com> wrote: >Hi All, > >I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this draft. >https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt > >Summary: > >This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow >additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA. Overall, >well written, easy to understand what the objective is for this draft. > >Comments and Questions: > >This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would >almost argue to call it OSPFv4.. Experience has proved that new versions are slow to deploy. OSPFv3 is well positioned to evolve to the next generation IGP. > Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that >would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to >extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a better >way to achieve the goal. No - we struggled with backward compatibility and, due to complexity, went with with area by area migration as opposed to migration with concurrent usage of both regular and extended LSAs. Thanks, Acee > > >Minor Issues and Nits: >none. > >Thx, > >Ice. > > >