Hi Acee, v11 didn't cover any of those 3 but I believe Shraddha and I have come to an agreement on 1 and 3. Only 2 needs further discussion.
Thanks, Ketan On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:23 AM Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ketan - does the -11 version of the draft address 1 or 3 below? I know it > doesn't address 2. > > Thanks, > Acee > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Apr 27, 2024, at 2:16 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Acee, > > > > I've responded to the thread with Shraddha. There are still 3 issues > open - (1) an error with TLV reference, (2) a codepoint allocation being > done without specification, and (3) regarding the updates to FlexAlgo rules. > > > > You have asked me about (2). There is no issue with Generic Metric > codepoint allocation as a sub-TLV for OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV (which also > includes as a sub-TLV of ASLA TLV) - its use for FlexAlgo is fully > specified in this document. My objection is to allocation for OSPFv2 TE > Opaque LSA without any specification being done on how it is used. I am > just asking to leave that out to a document that actually specifies the > usage and let this draft progress towards publication. > > > > Hope that clarifies. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:23 PM Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Ketan, Shraddha and Les, > > > > > > I’m trying to conclude this thread and send this document to the AD. > I’ve read the Emails but I must admit I don’t understand all the arguments. > > > > > > Ketan - if we have the generic-metric in IS-IS, why wouldn’t define it > in OSPF as well? If you cannot provide a compelling argument, I ‘m going to > request publication of the document send it to the actual LSR AD. > > > > Shraddha - I see that you included similar text in section 4.3.1 to > address Les’s comment. I guess the example referring to Flex algo 128/129 > is not needed. > > > > Les - I’m sure what the I-bit but I don’t see that adding it at this > juncture is a good idea unless the described protocol enhancements don’t > work without it. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > > > >> On Apr 15, 2024, at 02:46, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha= > 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ketan, > >> Thanks for reply. > >> Pls see inline.. > >> > >> Juniper Business Use Only > >> From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > >> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 2:25 PM > >> To: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> > >> Cc: Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com>; 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] > >> Hi Shraddha, > >> Thanks for your responses. Please check inline below for > clarifications with KT. > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 9:49 AM Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Ketan, > >> Thanks for the review and comments. > >> Pls see inline for replies. > >> Juniper Business Use Only > >> From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:07 PM > >> 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] > >> Hi All, > >> I have reviewed this document and believe it needs some further work > before publication. > >> I am sharing my comments below: > >> 1) There is the following text in sec 2.1 and 2.2 for Generic Metric. > >> A metric value of 0xFFFFFF is considered as maximum link metric and a > link having this metric value MUST NOT be used during Flex-algorithm > calculations [RFC9350]. The link with maximum generic metric value is not > available for the use of Flexible Algorithms but is availble for other use > cases. > >> I believe the FlexAlgo reference here is to > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html#name-max-metric-consideration > But the above text does not align with the RFC9350. If a link is to be > made unavailable for FlexAlgos operating with a specific Generic Metric, > then the way to do that is to omit that specific Generic Metric TLV from > the ASLA for flex-algo application. The same would apply for other > applications - just omit the metric. Why do we need a special > MAX-LINK-METRIC value for generic metric given that it is a new thing we > are introducing? > >> <SH> I see what you are saying. Text is updated as below for ISIS and > similar for OSPF. > >> “A metric value of > >> 0xFFFFFF is considered as maximum link metric and a link having > >> this metric value MUST be used during Flex-algorithm calculations > >> as a last resort link as described in sec 15.3 of RFC[9350] > >> KT> Thanks - that works. Perhaps also clarify that to make the link > unusable by FlexAlgo using that generic metric, the advertisement of the > particular generic metric can be skipped. > >> <SH2> ok > >> 2) This comment is specific to OSPF given the encoding differences > it has with ISIS. Section 2.2 allows for Generic Metric TLV to be used in > too many places without clear specification of what it is used for - this > is a potential pitfall for interop issues. RFC9492 provides helpful > directions for us here. > >> a) This draft specifies FlexAlgo extensions, it is natural that Generic > Metric be advertised under ASLA TLV. No issues here. > >> b) This draft does not specify anything about use of generic metric in > base OSPF and as a reminder there is nothing like L-bit in OSPF encoding. > Therefore, it does not make sense to advertise Generic Metric outside of > ASLA and under the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV or OSPFv3 Router Link TLV. > >> c) This draft does not specify anything about use of generic metric > with RSVP-TE/GMPLS. Therefore, it does not make sense to advertise Generic > Metric in the TE Opaque LSAs. > >> We can have specific documents that introduce (b) or (c) when there is > a proper specification. > >> <SH> Generic metric is a link attribute and can be used by other > applications apart from Flex-algo. > >> I don’t see a reason to not take code-points under other applicable > LSAs. > >> KT> I disagree on this one. There is a reason why what is proposed in > the draft for ISIS is OK - due to the L-bit in ASLA, we need codepoints > both under ASLA and at the top level for FlexAlgo. There is no L-bit in > OSPF and therefore this does not apply. The code-points can be allocated > when the behavior is specified for those other LSAs and applications > (beyond FlexAlgo) in OSPF. We should not set the precedent for allocating > code-points for TLVs without any defined use or behavior. > >> <SH2> Early code points are taken and implementations underway for > other applications. > >> “Implementations MUST support sending and receiving generic metric > >> sub-TLV in ASLA encodings as well as in the TLV 22/extended link > LSA/TE-LSAs. > >> The usage of a generic metric by an individual application is subject > to the same > >> rules that apply to other link attributes defined in respective > standards.” > >> The above text clarifies the use of generic metric by individual > application. > >> 3) Please introduce a reserved field to pad the OSPF FAEMD sub-TLV to > a 4 octet boundary as is the convention in OSPF - > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-08.html#section-3.2.2 > >> <SH> OK > >> KT> Thanks. > >> 4) In section 3.2.2 there is the following text for OSPF. Could you > please use the TLV/sub-TLV name? OSPF folks are not good at remembering > numbers ;-) > >> The Min Unidirectional Link Delay as advertised by sub-sub-TLV 12 of > ASLA sub-TLV [RFC8920], MUST be compared against the Maximum delay > advertised in the FAEMD sub-TLV. > >> <SH> changed to “The Unidirectional Link Delay as advertised by > sub-sub-TLV 12” > >> KT> Perhaps my comment was not clear. The following text would be > more accurate: > >> The Min Delay value advertised via the Min/Max Unidirectional Link > Delay sub-TLV [RFC7471] of the ASLA sub-TLV [RFC8920], MUST be compared > against the Maximum delay advertised in the FAEMD sub-TLV. > >> <SH2> I think there is a misunderstanding here. You are proposing to > use sub-tlv 13 where as the text in the draft clearly proposes to use > sub-tlv 12. This probably justifies why it is important to specify sub-tlv > number > >> And not just name. > >> 5) Do we want to call out that the reference bandwidth approach > requires a router to compute and maintain a per link per algo bandwidth > metric for every link in that algo topology. It may not be very obvious to > some. > >> <SH> updated as below > >> “Advertising > >> the reference bandwidth in the FAD constraints allows the metric > >> computation to be done on every node for each link. > >> The metric is computed using reference bandwidth and the advertised > link bandwidth. > >> Centralized control of this > >> reference bandwidth simplifies management in the case that the > >> reference bandwidth changes” > >> KT> The above text is not really needed IMHO. My point was more about > the implementation detail - for the flexalgo computation, we need to > maintain this info on a per link per algo topology basis in the link-state > data store used for path computation. I will leave it to the authors if > this is needed or is obviously clear to implementers. > >> <SH2> I don’t see the need to add implementation specific details. > >> 6) There are a lot of procedures which are common to both OSPF and > ISIS and are repeated in each section instead of a common section. It would > be easier (and avoid errors) if there was some consolidation. > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html#section-5 provides a good > reference for such an organization of text. > >> <SH> There is repetition in some cases but its not much so it seems to > me leaving it as is for clarity may be better. > >> KT> This is an editorial comment so I leave it to the authors. My > concern is that great care/diligence is required through the rest of the > publication process to ensure that when anything is changed or updated for > one IGP, it is done appropriately for the other as well - it may be > copy/paste case when the change is IGP agnostic but may need careful > consideration when related to the specific IGP mechanics. > >> 7) Regarding > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-08.html#section-6, > it seems like we want to retain a numbering ordering of rules/sequence for > flex-algo as extension documents are introduced. Am I correct? If so, then > this document should formally "update" RFC9350 since it is changing the > "set of rules/sequence" for FlexAlgo computations. Further such extensions > will also need to keep updating the base spec similarly. I would suggest > that a full set of rules that is a union of what is in RFC9350 and rules > added by this draft are maintained in an Appendix section. Other documents > in the future can similarly maintain the latest set of rules. > >> <SH> This draft is adding 2 new rules at the end of existing rules. Its > not modifying or changing the order. > >> I don’t see what value it is going to add by repeating the set of rules > in Appendix. > >> KT> What happens when another FlexAlgo document adds more rules? What > happens when some FlexAlgo document wants to insert rules in the middle of > existing ones instead of appending at the end? My point is that if there is > a desire to establish a "live" set of rules in specific orders, then we > need to leave a trail of document "updates" on the base FlexAlgo that one > can refer to know how these "live set of rules" are getting "updated" by > this and future documents. I am thinking of this on lines similar to an > update for an FSM. > >> <SH2> It’s a matter of choice. For ex RFC 8029 > >> Has so many updates to the Rules but each update only lists > the changes. > >> I am fine with whatever WG decides to do. > >> I want to hear if anyone in WG has an opinion on adding > Appendix. > >> Thanks, > >> Ketan > >> 8) Please fix idnits warnings - some are related to obsolete > references while others are related to formatting. There are also some > spelling/grammar errors. > >> <SH> ok > >> Thanks, > >> Ketan > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 3:56 AM Acee Lindem <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 > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
