Re: [Lsr] Disposition of Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-11

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I agree with all of the changes that Acee has proposed.  In the course of implementing them, I also found a few more editorial changes, which I’ve taken the liberty of fixing.  If I have mis-applied Acee’s suggestions, it is my mistake.

Please review these changes. If they are acceptable, I think the next step is to discuss pruning the author’s list. As you may recall, we are over the legal limit and we previously agreed that we would prune before publication. I think that time has come.

I’m attaching XML, HTML, and a diff.

Regards,
Tony

> On Feb 10, 2023, at 2:48 PM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> All, 
> 
> There was a lot of interest in this draft when we were working on this draft and while this has somewhat waned, I 
> believe there is a lot of good work here and it should be preserved. Our intent is to publish it on the Experimental track. 
> 
> I’ve done a review and have some comments minor comments which it would be good to resolve prior to WG last call. Also, the draft is currently expired and
> it should be active prior to WG last call. 
> 
> My two primary comments are:
> 
>  1. While the draft doesn’t specify a dynamic flooding algorithm, there is a lot normative text as to how a dynamic flooding algorithm should
>      behave to ensure stability (section 6.8). I don’t have a problem with this specification and hope it won’t represent a barrier for reviewers.
> 
>  2. The OSPF protocol encodings are derived from the IS-IS protocol encodings without reflecting all the differences in OSPF. I’ve attempted to
>      fix this in my suggested editorial changes. For example, OSPF will never have more than one area associated link in a flooding topology and
>      OSPF is limited by the size of LSAs as opposed to the 1 octet length in IS-IS TLVs. 
> 
> See diff attached with suggested editorial changes. 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> <draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-11.diff.html>