I’m with Les on this one — "we should not conflate this document by discussing
such issues.”
We often have this tension at this stage of reviewing a draft that’s almost
ready for publication. It’s being cross-reviewed by specialists in other areas,
and so it’s helpful for the document to
Top posting one comment.
Regarding
[Bruno2] Well, I have large freedom to express myself in an email. Writing a
summary of WG history in an RFC is a little bit more engaging... Also, although
the perspective may be of interest, it’s less likely of little interest to an
IS-IS implementor.
I
Zahed –
Just a heads up – both Bruno and I will be away next week (for unrelated
reasons ) – so there will be some delay in responses and likely an updated
version won’t be available until after we return.
Thanx for your patience.
Some responses inline. Look for LES2:
From: Zaheduzzaman
Shraddha -
Thanx for the response.
Please see inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Shraddha Hegde
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:02 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem ; lsr
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for
Hi Les,
Thanks for bringing-up this point.
I agree some clarification is required for the case when G bit is set.
In case of automatic metric calculation, there may be some links that are
outliers and an operator
may want to statically configure the bandwidth metric for such links. This is
the
