Hi Acee,
Thanks for the review and edits.
I have incorporated all edits.
Will post -08 when window opens.
Pls see inline for replies
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 4:16 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth,
Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Authors,
I support publication of this document but not in its current state. I have the
following comments that should be resolved first:
1. "Backward Compatibility" section is missing. This should be
straightforward given that an FAD computation only includes
nodes supporting that FAD.
<SH> OK
2. “Security Considerations” is “TBD”.
<SH> ok
3. There is no “Operational Considerations” section. Someone may ask for
one.
<SH> ok
4. The document alludes to the problem with elephant flows. Yet for
“Interface Group Mode”, the aggregate bandwidth for multiple L3 links is used.
How would this work when a flow is typically bound to a single L3 interface?
<SH> All we are trying to do in this document is to assign metric relative to
bandwidth. IGPs cannot do any bandwidth management and path placement and it’s
been mentioned in the introduction section clearly.
5. #3 in section 5 is very hard to parse. Possibly split into multiple
coherent sentences.
<SH> will do
Lots of editorial nits - I’m attaching some suggested edits but I’m not sure I
got them all.
1. Use “sub-TLV” and “Sub-TLV” consistent with the usage in RFC 9350. I
tried to fix these on the fly but it probably still needs work. Basically, it
is capitalized when used as part of a proper noun identifying a specific
sub-TLV. Also, in section titles and captions.
<SH> will do
2. Reference RFC9350 rather than the Flex-Algo draft throughout.
<SH> ok
3. I didn’t make the change but I’d use “Layer-2” and “Layer-3”
hyphenated.
<SH>ok
See attached editorial suggestions in the RFC diff.
Thanks,
Acee
> On Feb 19, 2024, at 5:25 PM, Acee Lindem
> <acee.lin...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.lin...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> This starts the Working Group Last call for
> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07. At least some of the flex algorithm
> enhancements described in the document have been implemented.
>
> Please send your support or objection to this before March 5th, 2024.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cv33O23fKbqI5Mibov464lpU2T_xjsvN8M9FRLg5sfwFuc-uvt8zz70GyAVhzS-6Tzg8QoA1XXKadGgo4se8DQ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cv33O23fKbqI5Mibov464lpU2T_xjsvN8M9FRLg5sfwFuc-uvt8zz70GyAVhzS-6Tzg8QoA1XXKadGgo4se8DQ$>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
