Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Alvaro's discuss. I would like to thank Menachem for the OPSDIR review. I also have a few minor nits for the authors to consider: (1) p 3, sec 2. Problem Statement Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being discussed. It was unclear what is meant by this, please clarify. I.e., Do you mean described in this document? Or there is ongonig discussion in the WG? Or ... (2) p 5, sec 2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and R8), and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP. Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3 (say R9), Should this be "an entry ASBR" rather than "the entry ASBR"? (3) p 7, sec 3. Extensions to ISIS-TE Also, two other new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the TE Router ID when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire IS-IS routing domain. As a nit, I would put the last sentence above into its own paragraph. "This document also defines two other new sub-TLVs ..." (4) p 8, sec 3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV Rsvd bits MUST be zero when originated and ignored when received. Perhaps "Reserved (Rsvd) bits MUST be zero ..." _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
