Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Mon, 24 May 2021 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@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 0A8D93A2D11; Mon, 24 May 2021 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8grKT7boOU9B; Mon, 24 May 2021 08:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f41.google.com (mail-vs1-f41.google.com [209.85.217.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C1A13A2D12; Mon, 24 May 2021 08:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f41.google.com with SMTP id x22so6445194vsn.2; Mon, 24 May 2021 08:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=D9dz9v4jTYmtBWMZGxtxe7BIvRmb03xUr+LJ2rqVxlU=; b=FEjMyxCzPtgd4qpmAE01BYyAjVduWgjbMO1lq311hfDTG3DBfyUYIn146FjrTXhHbo oqzJ/xPJyBZInUsHwL2WS2GhclnXOtCYFnc3C2tzAn+iCJqTOYPTBdAPvTEUogFkh43D NuMgjqrmQDGb6eLrdwpLSN03BBu4+54zGdzXLp1pI6ZkntYuIdluvUA40FOujVF4JxeY SSpC0VSYqwPN2w3SOTjP8fcodIxH6dmD5Qh4z2ZxSa3s3d4j8mGxC2HMsnPKtM2K1rjR OSP+8dDanSmSOXgY7fxjg8YC8qb5ln5wv/eg3aG0OMOFFveE5DxL/a92eB1QOjYy3EmO MGSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dwpmo5ntdtCeJZkR2tGkJ0dOhp9bLJ4mSrzO0gNUcZ6mVYoxn bgqjLuKTbipSnurhTxudFhtP3cgOCy5UxkC++rs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyD/QRO0E+TZ+BxfdP1kDTIbBgi6gZ4YeA8dAOblEUOdsyA2yQbeHGkOwIWHcCIOZ/ULKKRrW6zeIloxjzekE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e444:: with SMTP id n4mr22641054vsm.48.1621871205117; Mon, 24 May 2021 08:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202105200955495710804@zte.com.cn> <CY4PR05MB357659CAE530C61E253AC958D52A9@CY4PR05MB3576.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmVRqpSxxFoDKEtdv=zSu6gXbdyDFbpuM7ek93La1n5Hew@mail.gmail.com> <E63007E1-4C5E-479B-A4EE-7EADF93B058A@tony.li> <D363EE45-B866-43EE-B7AD-68B5D70E17E1@cisco.com> <m2eedx9bpy.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org> <8414EAB5-BFA0-4A81-8F1F-BEE5BC9BC67C@cisco.com> <CA+-tSzxrMncSbBhiRrCWq8XD4JLWar6j1ROocUG4FCu-P+NJUA@mail.gmail.com> <9C494532-DF21-4D76-AC97-41917E6DBD94@tony.li> <CA+-tSzyY_=pfECpQm2S=4_qpKYZcO=N_-6uWyuEhKUcWya-WMg@mail.gmail.com> <8446C3B2-6D6F-4C73-B10C-D99E6914749D@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <8446C3B2-6D6F-4C73-B10C-D99E6914749D@tony.li>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 08:46:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzy5GEQ3=F_kejR8xuJR5-Q890nyLqbAeor70eZN4Bj=Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>, "draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000d841505c3155108"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ZhQ9p9eUNwESuklkvngggHDFOZQ>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 24 May 2021 15:46:51 -0000

Yes, I think that would be useful.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 8:42 AM Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

>
>
> On May 24, 2021, at 8:39 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> I thought that it might help operators and vendors think about
> these components.
>
>
>
>
> I would have no objection to simply enumerating the possibilities and
> noting the consistency requirement.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 8:33 AM Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 24, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think it might be a good idea if the draft mentioned what delay(s)
>> "SHOULD" be used.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> It seems like this is local to a domain. The network administrator is
>> free to do as he sees fit and include whatever parameters make sense to
>> them. As long as the network is self-consistent, that should operate
>> correctly.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>