Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony, Sarah,

On 10/08/2020 18:00, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
>>>>> The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as 
>>>>> defined in [RFC7810 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>]". When 
>>>>> reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs:
>>>>> 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional 
>>>>> Link Delay Sub-TLV
>>>>> Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max 
>>>>> Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay 
>>>>> carried in the subTLV be ignored?
>>>>
>>>> flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link 
>>>> Delay", which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link 
>>>> Delay Sub-TLV".
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" 
>>>> carries some other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the 
>>>> flex-algo usage.
>>> Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific 
>>> section?
>>
>> which specific section do you have in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> In the flex algo draft, in section 5.1, you current have the text:
> 
> 1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>].
> 
> 
> Could you please change that to:
> 
> 1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>] Section 4.2.

I'm going to change the reference in section 5.1 to I-D.ietf-isis-te-app 
to address the other concern that Gunter and you expressed.

I-D.draft-ietf-isis-te-app references RFC8570 for Min/Max Unidirectional 
Link Delay Sub-TLV format, so we do not need to reference the RFC8570 
here directly.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Tony
>