Hi, Acee: For adoption call of one document, you are counting the number of support votes, not to let the authors solve/explain the disputed part? My understanding is that the WG Chairs should help to solve the controversial points, or make judgements based on his knowledges.
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On May 21, 2021, at 23:38, Acee Lindem (acee) > <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > Hi Tony, Aijun, > > From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> on behalf of Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> > Date: Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM > To: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, > "draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org" > <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, > Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > > Hi Aijun, > > > I support the adoption of the “FAD constraint sub-TLV” part(Section 3), but > not support the introduce of “Bandwidth Metric Advertisement” part (Section > 4) and other related parts. > > > As I understand it, we don’t get a line item veto, so I don’t know how the > chairs will take this. > > As WG chair, I don’t see that Aijun’s concerns would prevent WG adoption. The > draft has plenty of support. The discussion can continue after adoption. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > With the introduce of additional constraint information, the problem > described in “Introduction” part(Section 1) can be solved. > > > Please say more. Claims without rationale are not reasoning. > > > > The usage of bandwidth metric in large network is not feasible. > > > Ditto. > > > > And, would you like to explain more for the following statements(in Section > 4.1.1.2) > “In the interface group mode, every node MUST identify the set of > parallel links between a pair of nodes based on IGP link > advertisements and MUST consider cumulative bandwidth of the parallel > links while arriving at the metric of each link.” > based on example described in Figure 7? > > > The paragraph immediately above explains exactly that. B->C has two parallel > 10Gbps links, so it should be considered to be 20Gbps. > > > > How the cumulative bandwidth will be used to achieve the result that traffic > from B to D will prefer B-C-F-D, not B-E-D? > > > B-C-F-D is 20Gbps. B-E-D is 10Gbps. > > 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
