Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-pcr-04: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Thank you.

Regards, Benoit
> Hi Benoit and Linda,
>
> Thank you very much for the review!
>
> RFC5305 and draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions have been used as basis
> for draft-ietf-isis-pcr, both of them are included in the normative
> references. Section 4 lists RFC5305 and
> draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions sub-IS-IS TLVs that may be used by
> IS-IS PCR including Bandwidth sub-TLVs; they are listed on page 8.
>
> draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions defines multiple Bandwidth sub-TLVs
> of exactly the same form (except for the different values of the Type
> parameter). These Bandwidth sub-TLVs have different purpose. (4.5.
> Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV, 4.6. Unidirectional Available
> Bandwidth Sub-TLV, 4.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV) All
> these sub-TLVs are stored in the Traffic Engineering Database (TED).
>
> The Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV has a different purpose compared to the
> Bandwidth sub-TLVs of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions. Bandwidth
> Constraint sub-TLV specifies constraint for constrained routing. The
> Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV is compared to the TED to decide whether or
> not the constraint is met. Furthermore, Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV
> defines additional parameters (PCP, DEI), which are are needed but not
> provided by either of the isis-te-metric-extensions sub-TLVs. Thus, the
> new sub-TLV provides the new parameters and clear distinction in the
> purpose.
>
> Consistency with isis-te-metric-extensions and RFC5305 is ensured
> because the Available Bandwidth parameter of the Bandwidth Constraint
> sub-TLV is encoded exactly the same way as the bandwidth parameter of
> the TLVs specified in isis-te-metric-extensions and RFC5305 . This is
> also necessary to be able to compare the parameter of the Bandwidth
> Constraint sub-TLV with the TED. (It is explained in  item g) of Section
> 6.3 in draft-ietf-isis-pcr.)
>
> Best regards,
> Janos
>
>
> On 1/7/2016 9:01 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-isis-pcr-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-pcr/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> As mentioned by the Linda Dunbar in her OPS-DIR review:
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> Why the Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV is not same as the Bandwidth Sub-TLV
>> defined by
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07#page-10?
>>
>> Need to make sure that the Bandwidth Sub-TLV (unidirectional available
>> bandwidth, unidirectional utilized bandwidth sub-TLV, etc), of
>> draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions is consistent.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>>
>>
>>