Chen, Thanks for your quick reply, very much appreciated.
Thanks as well for your upcoming change and for your explanations. Regards -éric From: chen....@zte.com.cn <chen....@zte.com.cn> Date: Wednesday, 2 April 2025 at 05:21 To: nore...@ietf.org <nore...@ietf.org> Cc: i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-fl...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-fl...@ietf.org>, lsr-cha...@ietf.org <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org>, acee.i...@gmail.com <acee.i...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06: (with COMMENT) Hi Eric, Thank you for your review and support of this work. Please see inline... Best Regards， Ran Original From: ÉricVynckeviaDatatracker <nore...@ietf.org> To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-fl...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-fl...@ietf.org>;lsr-cha...@ietf.org <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org>;acee.i...@gmail.com <acee.i...@gmail.com>; Date: 2025年04月01日 20:01 Subject: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06: (with COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06: No Objection 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done in this document, simple but efficient and needed ! Two COMMENTs about section 2: ``` Length: Variable, dependent on the included Prefix Attribute Flags. This indicates the length of the value portion in bytes. The length MUST be a multiple of 4 octets. If the length is not a multiple of 4 octets, the LSA MUST be considered malformed. ``` While I can guess what the "value portion" is, why not clearly specifying the "prefix attributes flags" ? Also, why not being consistent and using "octet" only (i.e., no "byte"). Ran：We will clearly specifying the "prefix attributes flags" and will consistently use "octet" throughout the document. Do both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 specify what to do with malformed TLV ? Ran：Yes. For extended LSAs for OSPFv3, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8362, and for OSPFv2, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3630. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
