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

[[e-mail]]

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.

> 
> 
> 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 Delay            RFC8570 <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