IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-13

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Thu, 08 June 2023 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3496BC14F738; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Nr58PfYsrN7G; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 1E586C14F73F; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-650352b89f6so568892b3a.0; Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686243233; x=1688835233; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hwrF86cwvtPgcgUIMjDmMIBD3giMJJsP9JmB1oGRJRY=; b=j65h/cLBF6CZKFHdMMgwckBWZ8+FqwKaBQgyNiyhY3MW5YSV1YenwKmfJYTkkxO5/P 85CVoWIZr1aK15ldroh576uQwU9L4e1urn7Fg0nLdRWAkWSw3VbAgOHkllp69uUk2V0Z V5UohPPE19i/zJfH/YQvV+d2Xigjnq9kWPvErg9hKa76mgFf4CVpx4EuIsYvoUtCZiS9 MU1BNvgZpmo0Xv03UlSW24Sj0OZsGbD0ekOfatU1aKda1NYyC02QiLo0pdLkonJM8/op K+ul4ZS41g7Ocflurv/WAOac7WI7vSSQE6UeJtG+FtcbeD4vAio7HZ+W3j8Wtql39BiF wS6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686243233; x=1688835233; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:sender:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hwrF86cwvtPgcgUIMjDmMIBD3giMJJsP9JmB1oGRJRY=; b=JqwQBK6htWEDXwPnWPBlYxM2c+psKNZ1zqWj+PWbYfUUJTNxzAUsJyB7CS6NerYjpI 4OOXO6YuILWf5f7rrKFv09/lpV51WEgjzBCtLg2/y73okGzY7CwU96LNZFrbZejBJkHA XVagyyO0p2FUmp0pEmeJ84MUOGhU/Veo/cABPOgDBkcm1lalIwxyID8BS5CxSDlFGhc1 D9ouyvSC1VfoDUCYtFzzby5zAw2ypZ221eu6xKIZTU+2ZunEAwBQBOjSj66/auAP21mh 0zW6hHsc/XAHLgW6tlJHVpMT0Xkkn4U1cQrCLnbaBlmmnwvlFplgW4hS8x4vQUVBdOxB KXNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDw8M7WBXY6UtML4EdkvGQWMfrVi/pjye4SJsAAksmJZFmqp/B8+ Zj/cCjQHhRapG72WboBxRWs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5YQ6b3SUBYlmIVNrtdDQMyXJ9j6cErGQ+dalrr26idqv93o6rMe1r5QY04SjZthvA1H4ncmg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:179d:b0:64d:b0d8:a396 with SMTP id s29-20020a056a00179d00b0064db0d8a396mr6616473pfg.7.1686243232967; Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-73-231-0-74.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.231.0.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v6-20020aa78506000000b00640defda6d2sm1299598pfn.207.2023.06.08.09.53.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <436B28D2-2D3F-424A-BD43-21EEEB1E6473@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:53:40 -0700
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <143F2CC6-0A53-4CB0-BD70-1371CE42A8FD@tony.li>
References: <168598569343.13872.11493389117456342412@ietfa.amsl.com> <436B28D2-2D3F-424A-BD43-21EEEB1E6473@gmail.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/0yuX1HvgQ6_Kn6UvgbZStS9wegw>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-13
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 16:53:55 -0000

Hi Acee,

These issues have been addressed:

- The technical sections have been checked against implementations. The implementations have been found to be non-existant. All existing implementations only deal with the P2P case.

- We’ve added an informative reference. -14 published with the update.

Thanks,
Tony


> On Jun 5, 2023, at 10:30 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sue, 
> 
> Thanks for your review of a fairly large specifying complex functionality required prior IGP expertise. 
> 
> Authors, 
> 
> Please address Sue’s comments. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee (as document Shepherd) 
> 
>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 13:21, Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Susan Hares
>> Review result: Ready
>> 
>> The document is written in a clear and concise manner.
>> The authors have done an excellent job of making a difficult subject clear and
>> readable.
>> 
>> Two technical sections should be checked against implementations of IS-IS with
>> dense flooding (section 6.6.2.1 and section 6.6.2.2.  I am not implementing so
>> this check is beyond my capabilities.
>> 
>> Editorial nit:
>> section 3, requirement 3, sentence 2.  "Just addressing a complete bipartite
>> topology such as K5, 8 is insufficient."  An informative reference to K5,8 or a
>> bipartite topology might be helpful to readers.  This is an optional editorial
>> comment.
>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email