OSPF Two-Part Metric
draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-10
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -09)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-13 for -09)
Unknown
Sorry for being dense, but: 3.2. Advertising Network-to-Router Metric in OSPFv2 For OSPFv2, the Network-to-Router metric is encoded in an OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV [RFC7684], defined in this document as the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV. The type of the Sub-TLV is TBD2. The length of the Sub-TLV is 4 (for the value part only). The value part of the Sub-TLV is defined as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MT | 0 | MT metric | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I don't believe the document explains what are valid values of the MT field. Help?
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-10 for -09)
Unknown
If the update to RFC 5340 is kept, it should be mentioned in the abstract.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-11 for -09)
Unknown
Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> performed the opsdir review
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-10 for -09)
Unknown
Two quick questions: 1) Why does this doc update 2328 and 5340? I would assume an TLV extension does not need to update the base protocol. 2) Why is the OSPFv3 extension described in a separate document?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-12 for -09)
Unknown
abstract: the text doesn't really explain anything to me. But then I'm not familiar with OSPF so maybe it's obvious to someone who is. intro: expanding LSA, VPLS etc on 1st use would be better. 3.1, 2nd bullet: the text here was very unclear to me (All that said, the satellite/mobile ground station example does enough to ensure that the overall document is clear so the above are nitty nits:-)
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown