Hi Jeff and everyone Support the progress of this draft to WGLC and the next step in the process. I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR that may apply to this draft.
Thanks On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 1:20 PM Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
