Thank you, Peter, for the clarification. It would be nice to add a reference to the section number Section 4.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810#section-4.2>.
Thanks, Sarah On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:56 AM Peter Psenak <ppsenak= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > On 10/08/2020 16:21, tony...@tony.li wrote: > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > >>> The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as > >>> defined in [RFC7810 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>]". When > >>> reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: > >>> 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional > >>> Link Delay Sub-TLV > >>> Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max > >>> Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay > >>> carried in the subTLV be ignored? > >> > >> flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link > >> Delay", which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay > >> Sub-TLV". > >> > >> The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" carries > >> some other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the flex-algo usage. > > > > > > Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific > section? > > which specific section do you have in mind? > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tony > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
