OSPF Stub Router Advertisement
draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-04

[Ballot comment]
Even with Stewart's explanation of why this is Informational, I'm still not convinced why this (or 3137) is not PS (or at this point IS). But I don't think it makes enough difference to change.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this work which I support. I am balloting Yes, but hope you
will address my comments.

---

Can we take the oportunity to fix the Abstract since an OSPF
implementation is not synonymous with a router?

OLD
  This document describes a backward-compatible technique that may be
  used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise
  unavailability to forward transit traffic or to lower the preference
  level for the paths through such a router.
NEW
  This document describes a backward-compatible technique that may be
  used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise
  a router's unavailability to forward transit traffic, or to lower the
  preference level for the paths through such a router.
END

---

This document needs a section marked "Changes from RFC 3137" so that it
is easy for people to find out what has changed.

It may be that you intend the Appendix to capture this, and that the -00
version of the I-D was the same as the old RFC. But this is not clear.
Additionally, such change logs are usually deleted by the RFC Editor.
And, finally, at this stage we don't need to know the sequences of
changes from revision to revision: just the summary of all changes from
the RFC.

---

Section 2.1

  OSPFv3 [RFC5340] introduced additional options to provide similar, if
  not better, control of the forwarding topology; the R-bit provides a
  more granular indication of whether a router is active and should be
  used for transit traffic.

You have used one of my pet phrases. I have beaten-up about it
sufficiently that I am now sensitive to its use and the ambiguity it
provides.

Does "similar, if not better" mean the solution in 5340 is not better
(i.e. <= ) the solution you describe in this document. Or does it mean
that the solution in 5340 is at least better (i.e., >= ) the solution
you describe. When I use the phrase, I always mean the latter, but I can
see why many non-native speakers (such as Americans ;-) get confused.

Maybe just spell this out?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS-DISCUSS.
For the record, I cut/paste it, along with the answer, below.

Here is Fred Baker's feedback, from the OPS-directorate review (btw, no OP- related concerns):
If I would recommend the IESG do anything in particular with the draft, it would be to promote it to Proposed Standard; RFC 3137 is an Informational document that modifies a Proposed Standard, which seems strange. Operational experience with RFC 3137 has been that it works as advertised, and in IPv6 networks the R-bit approach is superior.

Answer from Stewart Bryant:
Benoit,

I have discussed with the authors and the chairs and they confirm that
Information is the appropriate track. The OSPFv3 R-bit is part of the
base OSPFv3 specification (RFC 5340) and hence all OSPFv3 routers
should support it.

The original motivation for making the OSPF Stub Router mechanism,
as described in RFC 3137, an informational document is that it can be
implemented purely as a local policy with the situations under which
the policy is applied and the duration of application out of the scope.
In other words, there is no change to the protocol or the behavior of
OSPF routers other than the OSPF router temporarily designating itself
a stub router.

The OSPF WG has consistently applied the policy of documents
requiring co-ordinated action being PS and local policy documents
being Informational, and this draft conforms to that policy.

[Ballot comment]
For bis drafts, it's often nice to list the differences between the old and new versions.  Appendix A lists the changes from -00 to -03, but it's not clear that it's going to be retained?  Is it and if it could they just the changes between 3137 and 3137bis?

Should RFC 2178 be referenced as well?  Curious why every other version of OSPFv2 is referenced except this one.

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS-DISCUSS
Here is Fred Baker's feedback, from the OPS-directorate review (btw, no OP- related concerns):

If I would recommend the IESG do anything in particular with the draft, it would be to promote it to Proposed Standard; RFC 3137 is an Informational document that modifies a Proposed Standard, which seems strange. Operational experience with RFC 3137 has been that it works as advertised, and in IPv6 networks the R-bit approach is superior.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03, which is currently in
Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF Stub Router Advertisement) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'OSPF Stub Router Advertisement'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a backward-compatible technique that may be
  used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise
  unavailability to forward transit traffic or to lower the preference
  level for the paths through such a router.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  Informational

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a backward-compatible technique that may be
  used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise
  unavailability to forward transit traffic or to lower the preference
  level for the paths through such a router. This document updates
  RFC3137 to include applicability to OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

  There were some noteworthy discussions around including an alternate
  solution in OSPFv3 which achieves some of the same goals as RFC3137.
  Authors added a section to capture the use of R-bit as a potential
  alternative solution. R-bit is part of base OSPFv3 (RFC2740).

Document Quality:

  The incremental update to RFC3137 are minimal and the application
  to OSPFv3 is identical to OSPFv2.

Personnel:

  Abhay Roy is the document shepherd and Stewart Bryant is the
  responsible AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  The draft is a minimal update of RFC3137. There has been significant
  review and discussion of this draft on the mailing list. There are no
  outstanding issues with this draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  Strong consensus from WG with many participating in discussions.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Authors have resolved all nits. One minor one (see below) remains which can be resolved in rfc-editor queue.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3137, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  Yes

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  There is no IANA Action needed.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  There is no IANA Action needed.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  Not applicable