Re: [Teas] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with COMMENT)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Rob -

Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 1:32 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> Please see inline ...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 21 September 2022 05:49
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-
> 04:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Rob -
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:07 AM
> > > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04:
> > > (with COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: No Objection
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> > > positions/
> > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> > > positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > COMMENT:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I support Alvaro's discuss.
> > >
> > [LES:] I have responded to Alvaro - please let me know if my response
> > addresses your concern.
> 
> Not really.
> 
> For this scenario having a SHOULD is okay, but it would then be helpful to
> describe the exact conditions when that SHOULD isn't effectively a MUST.
> But personally, I would find it clearer if the constraint was something like
> MUST be the same as TLV 134 when TLV 134 is also advertised.
> 
> But I will let Alvaro carry the Discuss.  I.e., if you get agreement from him (as
> a RTG AD) then that will be sufficient for me as well.
> 
> >
> > > I would like to thank Menachem for the OPSDIR review.
> > >
> > [LES:] I addressed Menachem's comments in V4 of the draft. Please let me
> > know if those changes are satisfactory.
> 
> Yes, they look fine, thanks.
> 
> >
> > > I also have a few minor nits for the authors to consider:
> > >
> > > (1) p 3, sec 2.  Problem Statement
> > >
> > >    Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
> > >    discussed.
> > >
> > > It was unclear what is meant by this, please clarify.  I.e., Do you mean
> > > described in this document?  Or there is ongonig discussion in the WG?
> Or
> > ...
> >
> > [LES:] I am unclear as to what is causing your confusion. The text in Section
> 2
> > states:
> >
> > "Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
> discussed.
> > The per-domain method [RFC5152] determines the path one domain at a
> > time. The backward recursive method [RFC5441] uses cooperation
> between
> > PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path. The sections that follow
> > examine how inter-AS TE link information could be useful in both cases."
> >
> > The two methods are explicitly named and an RFC reference provided for
> > each. Section 2.2 then discusses the per-domain method in more detail and
> > Section 2.3 discusses the backward recursive method in more detail.
> >
> > Please help me understand why you find this confusing.
> 
> Perhaps it is a difference in interpretation between UK vs US English.  As I
> said in my comment, I naturally read that sentence to mean that there is
> current discussion occurring somewhere (e.g., in a WG), not that the
> document is describing two methods.  I would find this clearer as "Two
> methods for determining inter-AS paths are supported: The per-domain ...",
> or something similar.  But all my ballot comments are just comments are
> hence you are free to ignore it if you wish.
> 
[LES:] OK - thanx - I understand now. At the time RFC 5316 was published one of the methods was still in draft form - so "being discussed" made sense at the time.. Now both are RFCs.
I have changed the text to say:

"Two methods for determining inter-AS paths have been described elsewhere."

   Les

> Thanks,
> Rob