Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13: 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-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Roni Evans for the GENART review. ** Section 6.1 – 6.3 prescribe behavior that SHOULD happen. What is the consequence if that guidance is not followed? ** Section 9 Section 9. An implementation MAY support TI-LFA to protect Node- SIDs associated to a FlexAlgo. In such a case, rather than computing the expected post-convergence path based on the regular SPF, an implementation SHOULD use the constrained SPF algorithm bound to the FlexAlgo (using the Flex Algo Definition) instead of the regular Dijkstra in all the SPF/rSPF computations that are occurring during the TI-LFA computation. Why isn’t the above SHOULD a MUST? If it is the case that an implementation uses a FlexAlgo (per sentence one), what would be the case where an implemented did not use the constrained SPF algorithm bound to the FlexAlgo? _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
