Shraddha -
Section 10.1 modifies the IGP Metric-Type registry - adding a new column to
indicate whether a given metric type is allowed in the Generic Metric sub-TLV.
This was done because we do not know at this time whether a future metric-type
will utilize the generic metric sub-TLV or not.
All we know at present is that types 0,1 are NOT allowed and the new
metric-type this document defines (3) IS allowed.
The most accurate statement for Section 2.1/2.2 would then be:
"The metric type may be any value which is indicated as allowed in the generic
metric sub-TLV by the IGP Metric-Type Registry."
Les
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 10:50 PM
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
lsr@ietf.org; acee.i...@gmail.com
Subject: [Lsr] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18: (with COMMENT)
Hi Eric,
I added below to sec 2.1/2.2
The value is taken from the "IGP Metric-Type"
registry maintained by IANA. The metric-type may be
standard metric-type (3-127) or user-defined (128-255).
Let me know if that works for you.
Ver-21 will reflect the changes.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>>
Sent: 06 February 2025 19:39
To: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>; The
IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc:
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org>;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>;
acee.i...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18:
(with COMMENT)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Shraddha
Thank you for your quick reply and the proposed changes and answers.
I still think that the text in section 2.1 and 2.2 could be clearer, but this
is non-blocking.
Regards
-éric
From: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>
Date: Thursday, 6 February 2025 at 14:51
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>>, The
IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc:
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org>
<draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org>>,
lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>
<lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>>,
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>,
acee.i...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>
<acee.i...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>>,
a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com> <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18:
(with COMMENT)
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the reply.
Pls see inline for replies <SH>..
Ver-19 will address your comments
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>
Sent: 03 February 2025 16:29
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc:
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org>;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>;
acee.i...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>;
a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18:
(with COMMENT)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C91vbUitzDkF8V1c0kH31BLKVBdwYOTMEXaU1XYgFXBCxXmBC4Eq_XizG2w2n0GSs9uICRCd_j_zePSW$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C91vbUitzDkF8V1c0kH31BLKVBdwYOTMEXaU1XYgFXBCxXmBC4Eq_XizG2w2n0GSs9uICRCd_j_zePSW$>
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C91vbUitzDkF8V1c0kH31BLKVBdwYOTMEXaU1XYgFXBCxXmBC4Eq_XizG2w2n0GSs9uICRCd_qwSyEVm$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C91vbUitzDkF8V1c0kH31BLKVBdwYOTMEXaU1XYgFXBCxXmBC4Eq_XizG2w2n0GSs9uICRCd_qwSyEVm$>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18
CC @evyncke
Thank you for the work put into this document.
Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education), and some nits.
Special thanks to Acee Lindem for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status, there is no
justification for six authors though.
I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
Regards,
-éric
## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
### Support of metrics by IGP routers
It is perhaps specified in other RFCs, but I failed to see the specification of
what to do when a router receives a metric that it does not support.
<SH> All the new metrics are used by Flex-algo. If a flex-algo definition
(FAD)includes a metric-type that is not supported/understood by a router, it
stops participating in that flex-algo. This behavior is specified in RFC 9350
And this document need not repeat this statement IMO . The router would simply
flood the LSPs/LSAs
Even if it did not understand the metric. This behaviour is defined in base
OSPF/ISIS standards
### Section 1
Should the terms throughput be used in addition to bandwidth ? E.g., s/High
bandwidth traffic/High throughput traffic/ ?
<SH>I searched the RFCs a bit and couldn't find other RFCs using the term high
bandwidth traffic,
I also couldn't find the term high throughput traffic . But for now I am
changing it to "high throughput traffic".
s/This document proposes /This document specifies / (or "defines"), after all
it will be published as a PS RFC ;-)
<SH> ok
Else, this section is super well written and easy to read.
Suggest adding a reference to "PCE".
<SH>OK
### Section 2
Suggest adding references to IS-IS and OSPF.
<SH>ok
Please expand "ASLA".
<SH> ok
### Section 2.1
It took me a while to understand that figure 1 is not part of bullet item g.
Please insert some leading text to ensure a clear understanding of the figure 1
between bullet g and the figure 1. Like done in section 2.2 for figure 2.
<SH> ok
### Sections 2.1 & 2.2
`The value is taken from the "IGP metric-type" registry maintained by IANA`,
but it was written previously that values 128-255 are for private use.
<sH> yes. The value can be 0-127 or user defined 128-255.
All these are defined in the "IGP metric-type" registry maintained by IANA.
Pls refer IANA section
### Section 3.1.1
Should there be a reference to `IEEE floating point format (32 bits)` ?
<SH> RFC 5305 uses this but I couldn't find a reference. Its well known, I
would believe.
### Section 10.1
Strongly suggest to add a reference to
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml*igp-metric-type__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C91vbUitzDkF8V1c0kH31BLKVBdwYOTMEXaU1XYgFXBCxXmBC4Eq_XizG2w2n0GSs9uICRCd_lM2amfO$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml*igp-metric-type__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C91vbUitzDkF8V1c0kH31BLKVBdwYOTMEXaU1XYgFXBCxXmBC4Eq_XizG2w2n0GSs9uICRCd_lM2amfO$>
rather than using "IGP Metric-type Registry"
<SH>ok.
I am still figuring how to add reference , will do in later version
## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)
## Requirements language
While correct, it appears at an unusual location. I guess that the RFC editor
will fix it.
<SH> ok
### Section 2.1
s/0XFFFFFF/0xFFFFFF/ or be consistent on how to write hexadecimal constant.
<SH> OK
### Section 9
s/When user defined metrics/When user-defined metrics/
<SH> OK
### Section 10.1
s/ pariticular / particular /
<SH> OK
### Use of SVG graphics
To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
