Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

[Sri <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Acee for the comments. I accept the comments but pls see inline at
Sri> for some clarification.

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I support publication of this work. I have the following editorial
> comments:
>
> 208,209c208,209
> <    source routed label stacks.  Lets L_N-P denote the label to be used
> <    to reach the node SID of LSR P.  Let L_A-Ln denote the label used for
> ---
> >    source routed label stacks.  Let L_N-P3 denote the label to be used
> >    to reach the node SID of LSR P3.  Let L_A-Ln denote the label used for
>

Sri> Changing 'Lets' to 'Let' is fine. Note that we are introducing
notation here that can be applied to specific node and adjacency SIDs. So
L_N-P is the generic notation for the label used for the SID of the node P,
which when applied to the SID for the node P3 becomes the label L_N-P3.  So
I prefer that the rest of the sentence stay as-is.


> 322c322
> <    label stack.  In the example described in Section 3 it will result in
> ---
> >    label stack.  In the example described in Section 3, it will result in
>

Sri> Accepted


> 330c330
> <    Section 3 the LSR P1 would poorly load-balance traffic on the
> ---
> >    Section 3, the LSR P1 would poorly load-balance traffic on the
>

Sri> Accepted


> 349c349
> <    This option was discounted since there exist a number of hardware
> ---
> >    This option was rejected since there are a number of hardware
>

Sri> Accepted


> 351,352c351,352
> <    Choosing this option can lead to a loss of load-balancing using EL in
> <    a significant part of the network but that is a critical requirement
> ---
> >    Choosing this option can lead to EL load-balancing interruptions in
> >    a significant part of the network and that is a critical requirement
>

Sri> Accepted


> 377c377
> <    This option was discounted due to the existence of hardware
> ---
> >    This option was rejected due to the existence of hardware
>

Sri> Accepted


> 381c381
> <    restrict the number of tunnels that can form a LSP and constrain the
> ---
> >    restrict the number of LSRs that can form an LSP and constrain the
>

Accepted


> 419c419
> <    This option was discounted due to the significant change in label
> ---
> >    This option was rejected due to the significant change in label
>

Sri> Accepted


> 432c432
> <    This option was discounted due to the significant change in label
> ---
> >    This option was rejected due to the significant change in label
>

Sri> Accepted


>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 4/23/16, 3:53 AM, "mpls on behalf of Loa Andersson"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >Working Group,
> >
> >This is to initiate a two week working group last call on
> >draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label.
> >
> >Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail]).
> >
> >There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
> >
> >All the authors and contributors (with one exception) have stated on
> >the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any other
> >IPRs that relates to this draft.
> >
> >This working group last call ends May 12, 2016.
> >
> >
> >/Loa
> >for the MPLS wg chairs
> >--
> >
> >
> >Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> >Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> >Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >mpls mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>