[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ms-ospf
Subject: [OSPF] Request for publication of OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions -
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem () ericsson ! com>
Date: 2011-10-31 16:14:08
Message-ID: 88C26728-BB4A-4351-BC8D-190E6D5D398B () ericsson ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
The OSPF WG requests publication for OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions - draft=
-ietf-ospf-multi-instance-06.txt.
The document shepherd write-up is attached.
Thanks,
Acee
["ospf-multi-instance-doc-shep.txt" (text/plain)]
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Manav Bhatia, Yes
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
Yes, No
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
No
(1.e) 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?
This draft is describing a mechanism to support multiple
routing domains on the same subnet, a mechanism that already
exists in OSPFv3. It modifies the OSPF packet header and takes
8 bits from the 16 bits of Authentication Type to indicate the
Instance ID. The mechanism described in this draft is backward
compatible with routers that cannot support multiple instances.
There is strong consensus in the WG behind this draft.
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
idnits 2.12.12
tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-instance-06.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2328, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
Yes, No
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
Yes (to all questions above)
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
Yes
(1.k) 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 draft extends OSPFv2 to support multiple routing domains
on the same subnet - a capability that already exists in OSPFv3.
This is different from OSPFv3 where it could be used for
other purposes such as putting the same interface in multiple areas.
OSPFv2 supports this capability using a separate subnet or the OSPF
multi-area adjacency capability.
Working Group Summary
The only discussion worth noting was the behavior of
legacy routers receiving OSPF packets with non-Zero instance
ID. It was concluded that the such packets would be
misinterpreted as having mismatched authentication type
and would get dropped. Such errors should get logged and
should result in the generation of SNMP traps. There was
concern that this could be an issue if every packet would
result in SNMP trap generation. However, it was discussed that
this will not be an issue since most implementations will damp
the logging of errors and generation of identical SNMP traps.
Document Quality
There is one known implementation.
["ATT00001.htm" (text/html)]
<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; \
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font class="Apple-style-span" \
face="monospace"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: \
pre;"><br></span></font><div><br></div></div></body></html>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic