OSPF Two-Part Metric
RFC 8042
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
If the update to RFC 5340 is kept, it should be mentioned in the abstract.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> performed the opsdir review
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection