Hi Tony, I am not sure what the deal is :)
But fact is that we never defined a type which this draft is referring to "Min Unidirectional Link Delay" just does not exist in any IANA registry so even any search for that will fail. Perhaps authors assumed that: Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay means both "Min Unidirectional Link Delay" & "Max Unidirectional Link Delay" but this is just asking for ambiguity. Cheers, R. On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 7:02 PM <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > Robert, > > Thank you, exactly. > > We just need a clarification of the document. I don’t understand why this > is such a big deal. > > Tony > > > On Aug 18, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Les, > > I think this is not very obvious as Tony is pointing out. > > See RFC 8570 says: > > Type Description > ---------------------------------------------------- > 33 Unidirectional Link Delay > > 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay > > > That means that is someone implementing it reads text in this draft > literally (meaning Minimum value of Unidirectional Link Delay) it may pick > minimum value from ULD type 33 :) > > If you want to be precise this draft may say minimum value of Min/Max > Unidirectional Link Delay (34) and be done. > > That's all. > > Cheers, > R. > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:04 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Tony – >> >> >> >> As an author of both RFC 8570 and I-D.ietf-isis-te-app, I am not sure why >> you are confused – nor why you got misdirected to code point 33. >> >> >> >> RFC 8570 (and its predecessor RFC 7810) define: >> >> >> >> 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay >> >> >> >> This sub-TLV contains two values: >> >> >> >> “Min Delay: This 24-bit field carries the minimum measured link delay >> >> value (in microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as >> >> an integer value. >> >> >> >> Max Delay: This 24-bit field carries the maximum measured link delay >> >> value (in microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as >> >> an integer value.” >> >> >> >> It seems clear to me that the flex-draft is referring to Min >> Unidirectional Link Delay in codepoint 34. >> >> >> >> I agree it is important to be unambiguous in specifications, but I think >> Peter has been very clear. >> >> Please explain how you managed to end up at code point 33?? >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * tony...@tony.li >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:44 AM >> *To:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com> >> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; >> Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; >> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> >> >> >> >> section 5.1 of the draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo says: >> >> >> Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. >> >> We explicitly say "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", so this cannot be >> mixed with other delay values (max, average). >> >> >> >> >> >> The problem is that that does not exactly match “Unidirectional Link >> Delay” or “Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay”, leading to the ambiguity. >> Without a clear match, you leave things open to people guessing. Now, it’s >> a metriic, so of course, you always want to take the min. So type 33 seems >> like a better match. >> >> >> >> >> >> section 7.3. of ietf-isis-te-app says: >> >> Type Description Encoding >> Reference >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay RFC8570 >> >> >> >> >> >> And it also says: >> >> >> >> 33 Unidirectional Link Delay RFC8570 >> <https://tools.ietf..org/html/rfc8570> >> >> >> >> >> >> This does not help. >> >> >> >> >> >> So, IMHO what we have now is correct and sufficient, but I have no issue >> adding the text you proposed below. >> >> >> >> >> >> What you have now is ambiguous. We have a responsibility, as writers of >> specifications, to be precise and clear. We are not there yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, before I posted 09 version of flex-algo draft, I asked if you were >> fine with just referencing ietf-isis-te-app in 5.1. I thought you were, as >> you did not indicate otherwise. >> >> >> >> >> >> My bad, I should have pressed the issue. >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyway, I consider this as a pure editorial issue and hopefully not >> something that would cause you to object the WG LC of the flex-algo draft. >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m sorry, I think that this is trivially resolved, but important >> clarification. >> >> >> >> You also have an author’s email that is bouncing, so at least one more >> spin is required. >> >> >> >> Sorry, >> >> Tony >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> Lsr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
