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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 5459C3A07C0; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 fVD-fMu2Pdso; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B55263A07B3; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2309; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597741288; x=1598950888; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2ayA+LZUn+fegY/+2di8WC6zdSID+rY8jfxPL1JDmDs=; b=XJ30abc+OzIQ+aMkpZl7RBYD/E7I0w2nIWArTHxk/blDndQTcPnsbvTl dD0dIGb/8I5VygECkj6LjR8XaDPbWP0CbvbSAY4GrzUooIb0eCnMcsKEa 1KxPv6966St5MXqnqEAKNvkTlc9JNcqbOLwpuYCpa8a2rnPXAnkGlG8GR U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,326,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="26406804"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Aug 2020 09:01:25 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07I91PJh021770; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:01:25 GMT
To: tony.li@tony.li, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org, lsr-ads@ietf.org, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo.all@ietf.org
References: <9094873B-3A03-4F48-B438-55AB0CA75396@chopps.org> <E9DF9CDA-D031-4995-BB69-7A9CEE312707@tony.li>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <dff9ca08-8950-ef1c-5926-39944e94c98b@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:01:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E9DF9CDA-D031-4995-BB69-7A9CEE312707@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/lyw1veevTHDHe_aIZX-0PVpF19c>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:01:32 -0000

Hi Tony,

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).


section 7.3. of ietf-isis-te-app says:

Type   Description                          Encoding
                                             Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
34      Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay    RFC8570


So, IMHO what we have now is correct and sufficient, but I have no issue 
adding the text you proposed below.

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.

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.

thanks,
Peter









On 18/08/2020 01:47, tony.li@tony.li wrote:
> 
> 
>> This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after September 1st, 2020, for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
>>
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I’d like to raise an objection.
> 
> Recently, I requested (and I thought that Peter agreed to) a clarification of the Min Unidirectional Link Delay.
> 
> As of version -08, the draft references RFC 7810 for the Metric-type in Section 5.1.
> 
> That RFC defines both a “Unidirectional Link Delay” (section 4.1) and “Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay” (section 4.2).
> 
> I requested that the reference be extended to specify the section.
> 
> Instead, as of -09, the reference has been changed to refer to ietf-isis-te-app.  This is somewhat helpful becuase it makes it clear that this should be found
> in the Application Specific Link Attributes Sub-TLV, but it still does not resolve the ambiguity of which sub-sub-TLV should be used.
> 
> I would again request that this be clarified.  Proposed text:
> 
> 	1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC 7810], section 4.2, encoded in the Application Specific Link Attributes Sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app].
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> 
>