Speaking as document shepherd and LSR Co-chair: Hi Mahesh,
> On Feb 4, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18: Discuss > > 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-flex-algo-bw-con/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 9, paragraph 0 >> Operational consideration defined in [RFC9350] generally apply to the >> extensions defined in this document as well. This document defines >> metric-type range for user defined metrics. When user defined >> metrics are used in an inter-area or inter-level network, all the >> domains should assign same meaning to the particular metric-type. > > The Operational Consideration in this document refers to Operational > Consideration in [RFC9350] which mentions that operators can configure the > FAD, > but does not mention how. In other words, is there a YANG model defined to > configure this feature? If not, why not? Ostensibly, we have flex-algorithm augmentations in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/ Since flex-algo is becoming a significant area of LSR extension, the co-authors of the above will discuss splitting flex-algo into separate drafts. What we really need is the the YANG module versioning to conclude and be implemented so that extensions are less onerous. But that is a separate discussion. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The document has six authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has > the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate. I had this discussion with the co-authors (especially given that there were four authors from one vendor) and all the co-authors were involved in the draft and implementation. If we are going to start gating IGP extensions to standardization of YANG model extensions, we are going to need to allow many more authors. Thanks, Acee > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
