Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com> Wed, 20 March 2024 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.lindem@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 D83ABC151549; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 aiSaCEfFTx85; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe33.google.com (mail-vs1-xe33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e33]) (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 D499DC15155E; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe33.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-476794adf30so974460137.1; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710903154; x=1711507954; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=1emkvqBnkowUnDusgh4W9/595DFPA72LBz+fBLeIHOs=; b=Eo/iE7tISPts+/9qgv34vN9Sllsy+0+RMeBlPOgZa6+cGkMs0d/I+GtVXk/hyVKqe8 gExV7ZW6o5w8GAzCxqvcv3/WhRzlikLbRq++3yqpivhj6vv5nH+/sHURDfeFOiwq97MU JsXH66DkMTKbHORd0VQiaH8s7lQ/cBrBTxT5jr1gnwaR+8znAXgasNYnXISUpd+mkkr2 DX6uIeh7/I5svuxK3jlkp6CihI/YEU8C7jVtGpyDWRtdSRUZ6ChjWlAT2VMhNR/AnLz7 yK8qP9pPxz6ftHrHGMLve+OJwHBeIaXnxb6WWBUO27AOfo9z94HAtr35DmSGDd7AFine uPxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710903154; x=1711507954; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1emkvqBnkowUnDusgh4W9/595DFPA72LBz+fBLeIHOs=; b=EG4ijhLN9GskPk3+/R7axmNffIA8X7iyIrRAfwq+xof1f7aG7UQwfBdD3AsHMSCt7S 3WfooajSATqH1CTdr3y7WrgxNEDTSGqz4uqgq72OypsTf0M2gqO/8PdPFDXRJU/fs+H4 DyrbSwmkr5BIz5F1yXQrpj1onemOn2H1vYNnEK2RZMe2SAGNLswZuC7LDwfywsu2SC30 daWcmXXnUGsqRgB4/pm6fHzDRjVN3wk7eK5XuWuuzpg+40YtUiAcO4sKuNby9Ulkdlj9 Im1PObRVz7PLn4Dn/AiRJJqUx6dMqz2eYiPwLVa2w7OsE4vwZa+9FCjjlZv+f/MOlR+s F94Q==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUbpkHrG3dFKN31vn4shulr50CvJlr+zoudCEleTx4UCRwzDNI06BBMqqId2al2+SvNSO/uVQxdrShcac+HaM48Zy1+ytK8JP2WQaTIAuz730bNzVxAc2hJ
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz42ta8/udXr1EwpFWq0AZ/XrbPw2PLmcH58pwxSpwPQRuF4kka L+Xi5eEesRyUbmhWWOYAiCIEMfq/cEfgCK3zCDUMrZvHtOpimOKo9b6Kjfwq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFM9qMt5jA0Cmy8sixhiMULd/ECgFL87aeUA2MZ5dwtue68H69Gfw+pdlvcaFVXtI2KjDplFw==
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e94c:0:b0:474:c309:3733 with SMTP id p12-20020a67e94c000000b00474c3093733mr12572195vso.11.1710903153866; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2605:a601:918a:7600:b918:3277:cf7b:6edc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id kj25-20020a056214529900b00690df461ecbsm7303222qvb.10.2024.03.19.19.52.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6.1.1\))
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR05MB831480977B17BCE233E60E8FD52D2@CO1PR05MB8314.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:52:22 -0400
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <38D72E22-200A-4819-A849-753E7BEF87B0@gmail.com>
References: <12CF8B14-E49F-49C0-A957-22A0769FBA83@gmail.com> <01D53488-D206-4C28-AFDD-499BEB097B57@gmail.com> <CO1PR05MB83143ECC8EE71A9E1FF4F04AD5212@CO1PR05MB8314.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CO1PR05MB831480977B17BCE233E60E8FD52D2@CO1PR05MB8314.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_XFNAcWmGjZyDlxtziUpHaKpJG8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 02:52:39 -0000

Hi Shraddha, 


> On Mar 18, 2024, at 6:51 AM, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Acee,
>  I read your comment about elephant flow and added below text in sec 4.1.1.2
>  “Note that a single elephant flow is normally
>    pinned to a single layer-3 interface. If the single layer-3 link
>    bandwidth is not sufficient for any single elephant flow, the mechanisms
>    to solve this issue are outside the scope of this document”

Yes. 

> Replace the term “centralized controller” with “PCE”

Yes. A reference for the PCE solution would be good as well. 



>  Posting -08 version now. Pls check


Thanks for addressing my comments. I still have not gotten an IPR statement from 
William Britto. If he is no longer associated with the draft, removing him would reduce
the number of authors to five. 

Thanks,
Acee



>  Rgds
> Shraddha
>  
> Juniper Business Use Only
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:22 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07
>  [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>  Hi Acee,
>  Thanks for the review and edits.
> I have incorporated all edits.
> Will post -08 when window opens.
> Pls see inline for replies
>   Juniper Business Use Only
>  Juniper Business Use Only
> From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 4:16 AM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07
>  [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Authors,
> 
> I support publication of this document but not in its current state. I have the following comments that should be resolved first:
> 
>     1. "Backward Compatibility" section is missing. This should be straightforward given that an FAD computation only includes
>         nodes supporting that FAD.
> <SH> OK
> 
>      2. “Security Considerations” is “TBD”.
> <SH> ok
> 
>      3. There is no “Operational Considerations” section. Someone may ask for one.
> <SH> ok
> 
>      4. The document alludes to the problem with elephant flows. Yet for “Interface Group Mode”, the aggregate bandwidth for multiple L3 links is used. How would this work when a flow is typically bound to a single L3 interface?
> <SH> All we are trying to do in this document is to assign metric relative to bandwidth. IGPs cannot  do any bandwidth management and path placement and it’s been mentioned in the introduction section clearly.
> 
>      5. #3 in section 5 is very hard to parse. Possibly split into multiple coherent sentences.
> <SH> will do
> 
> 
> Lots of editorial nits - I’m attaching some suggested edits but I’m not sure I got them all.
> 
>       1. Use “sub-TLV” and “Sub-TLV” consistent with the usage in RFC  9350. I tried to fix these on the fly but it probably still needs work. Basically, it is capitalized when used as part of a proper noun identifying a specific sub-TLV. Also, in section titles and captions.
> <SH> will do
> 
>       2. Reference RFC9350 rather than the Flex-Algo draft throughout.
> <SH> ok
> 
>       3. I didn’t make the change but I’d use “Layer-2” and “Layer-3” hyphenated.
> <SH>ok
> 
> 
> See attached editorial suggestions  in the RFC diff.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> 
> > On Feb 19, 2024, at 5:25 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > This starts the Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07. At least some of the flex algorithm enhancements described in the document have been implemented. 
> > 
> > Please send your support or objection to this before March 5th, 2024. 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lsr mailing list
> > Lsr@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cv33O23fKbqI5Mibov464lpU2T_xjsvN8M9FRLg5sfwFuc-uvt8zz70GyAVhzS-6Tzg8QoA1XXKadGgo4se8DQ$
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr