I support the progression of this doc for publication as RFC. I have a couple of terminology questions and an editorial nit.
Questions: The doc starts out by saying this allows one to perform unequal cost load balancing. Would it be more precise to say WECMP (which is the term used in the rest of the doc)? Unequal cost load balancing could mean UCMP where paths are of unequal length. It doesn't seem this draft does anything to enable that. In section 4, we have: "the transitivity doesn't matter for purpose of computing WECMP or programming to forwarding." Would it be better to say "programming the FIB" rather than "programming to forwarding"? Editorial nit: All of the following are used: link bandwidth community Link Bandwidth Community link bandwidth extended community Link Bandwidth extended community Link Bandwidth Extended Community Might be good if they are made consistent. Thanks, Anoop > > *From:* Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2025 7:46 PM > *To:* idr <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Idr] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth (Ending 1 > August, 2025) > > > > This is a reminder that WGLC is in progress for link bandwidth. Please > respond to the list whether you think the document is ready to be advanced > for publication. > > > > -- Jeff (shepherding chair) > > > > On Jul 11, 2025, at 11:01 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/ > > > > This begins the working group last call for the link bandwidth extended > community draft. Thanks to the authors for working their way through the > substantive items that have been obstacles to interoperability over the > years. > > > > This last call ends a week after IETF 123 to give the working group time > to review and also take advantage of the focus time that IETF meeting weeks > bring to our work. > > > > An item in particular we'd like to request particular attention to from > the working group's review are the procedures covering default behaviors > and interactions with deployments with mixed transitivities. The current > draft text works to try to accommodate maximal backward compatibility with > various deployment scenarios, but such text is tricky. > > > > For purposes of the shepherd's report and according to IETF BCP 78/79, the > authors are requested to declare whether they are aware of any undisclosed > IPR covering this draft. Members of the working group are similarly > obligated to report any they are aware of as well. > > > > -- Jeff (for the IDR Chairs) > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
