Robert – I have revised the subject since this is a different topic than the original thread.
If you want to discuss this further, please do so in the renamed thread. Note that I am NOT encouraging you to continue this discussion – I am in full agreement with Peter. I do not think what you propose is desirable or needed. Les From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:33 AM To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt Hey Peter, > And I will perhaps say it again that to me flex-algo is more of a > mechanism to build new applications then NEW APPLICATION itself. no, flex-algo is a single application, it's not a mechanism to create new applications. The fact that you can create many constraints topologies using flex-algo, does not mean these should be considered as different apps. You have to put and keep clear borders at clear places. We have them defined by ASLA and by base flex-algo draft. Why each constrained topology can not be intuitively called a different network application ? Is there any real definition of "IGP application" LSR WG has converged and agreed upon ? See your take that it is implicitly defined in flex-algo draft by setting one bit to it in SABM is IMO pretty weak. Maybe it would hold if you forbid to use UDABM for flex-algo metrics, but I do not see such restriction anywhere in flex-algo draft nor in ASLA drafts. That means that implementation may allow it. So flex algo is a single app if we use SABM, but it can be multiple apps if we use UDABM ? Don't you think this is a bit loose definition ? Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
