Hi Erik,
please see inline:
On 17/05/2020 06:36, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[ nits ]]
[ section 1 ]
* "(e.g., SR-MPLS" is missing a closing parenthesis
yes, this has been fixed as a response to previous comments.
[ section 3 ]
* "...unless all of its interfaces...":" do management interfaces, or other
interfaces over which no forwarding is taking place, count in this definition
of "all"?
no, only those over which forwarding happens should be considered.
If not, does this text need to be tightened or is this just one
of those things all implementers will naturally figure out? (I'm actually
betting this is just something readers will intuit.)
I would think so. It's kind of obvious that one would not take into
consideration interfaces like loopback or other types over which real
forwarding does not happen. The original text used line-cards instead of
interfaces, but that was changed to interfaces based on comments from
Alvaro.
If you insist, I can add a text to exclude the "non forwarding"
interfaces, but I can see more questions coming in as a result :)
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
