Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,

On 18/08/2020 16:44, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> 
>> section 5.1 of the draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo says:
>>
>> Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app].
>>
>> We explicitly say "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", so this cannot be 
>> mixed with other delay values (max, average).
> 
> 
> The problem is that that does not exactly match “Unidirectional Link 
> Delay” or “Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay”, leading to the ambiguity.
> Without a clear match, you leave things open to people guessing. Now, 
> it’s a metriic, so of course, you always want to take the min.  So type 
> 33 seems like a better match.

I'm not sure what do you mean by 33. "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay" 
is Type 34.

thanks,
Peter

> 
>>
>>
>> section 7.3. of ietf-isis-te-app says:
>>
>> Type   Description                          Encoding
>>                                            Reference
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 34      Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay    RFC8570
>>
> 
> 
> And it also says:
> 
> 33      Unidirectional Link DelayRFC8570  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570>
> 
> 
> 
> This does not help.
> 
> 
>> So, IMHO what we have now is correct and sufficient, but I have no 
>> issue adding the text you proposed below.
> 
> 
> What you have now is ambiguous. We have a responsibility, as writers of 
> specifications, to be precise and clear.  We are not there yet.
> 
> 
>> BTW, before I posted 09 version of flex-algo draft, I asked if you 
>> were fine with just referencing ietf-isis-te-app in 5.1. I thought you 
>> were, as you did not indicate otherwise.
> 
> 
> My bad, I should have pressed the issue.
> 
> 
>> Anyway, I consider this as a pure editorial issue and hopefully not 
>> something that would cause you to object the WG LC of the flex-algo draft.
> 
> 
> I’m sorry, I think that this is trivially resolved, but important 
> clarification.
> 
> You also have an author’s email that is bouncing, so at least one more 
> spin is required.
> 
> Sorry,
> Tony
>