Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-16

Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net> Fri, 08 March 2024 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@tenghardt.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA6EC14F684; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:21:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tenghardt.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nMQG2qeORRJj; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hemio.de (mail.hemio.de [136.243.12.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5F3C14F610; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from user.client.invalid (localhost [136.243.12.180]) by mail.hemio.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1391CB2; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:20:59 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tenghardt.net; s=20170414; t=1709936461; bh=MP/Acm9kJ3FeSwZV+tQWYIO4Ju6ofQ8L3gVzyLUBhD0=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=VAyV2nfgPZGPOckrmpnugANWYAYbfaRZedjyWviiAVM1giEyLhtOTmeducoOKRhtg tKgZPuD2TdAh2ZBCq/a9sUtTb6Dirgeol0YmzS73j5Vvu9pGSjJybDMFviXc3/9gjN I4O9l9bJh2jE4yJ+y/1nJ8m/ZQI3nss/WNaSXIjbQVEQS87lAbBnYohjw6QwV0ELY0 Afg+Ys7pswi+187ruoxoQ4hnHdJcPUCm9X62oaSPlq+dWtmayAK8NfPCOT++ivUEbm xfENFCjsIxJH3GyGS4dsFPYbq6zSGWFN1MiO5rEEsP07JUfvX13kCPj/XcXtGuKO7C JT9EPaClzNfdg==
Message-ID: <33fd6f9d-4e79-c36f-ffb7-50e4a4791ddc@tenghardt.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 14:20:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
References: <170915354386.13427.15831854412092994589@ietfa.amsl.com> <67644054-EBB7-4DD4-9C11-430873A5DC33@tony.li>
From: Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
In-Reply-To: <67644054-EBB7-4DD4-9C11-430873A5DC33@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ME75p7A9Jol3xmci7GJn5YXYoco>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-16
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 22:21:11 -0000

Hi Tony,

Thank you so much for the responses and changes! All of this sounds great.


One reply inline:

On 3/8/24 10:37, Tony Li wrote:
>> Are edges the same as links, in
>> which case please consider using consistent terms?
>
> In general, edges and links are synonymous in graph theory and routing. However, in this document, we are making something of a subtle distinction that is described in section 4.6.
>
> The distinction is relevant when you consider parallel links between nodes.  The flooding topology is computed on edges, which we are defining as a pair of nodes.  This can be instantiated by flooding on a given link. In the case of PTP links, we do not care that the nodes choose the same link for the edge, as they are functionally equivalent.  However, if broadcast LANs are involved, the distinction becomes relevant as other nodes will become part of the flooding topology.

This makes a lot of sense, thank you for the clarification.

Please consider adding a short note about how you are using the term 
edge in this case.


Best,
Reese