That works for me.
Thank you Eric.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/25/14, 11:28 AM, Eric Osborne wrote:
Works for me.
So
" The EAG sub-TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups
when an operator wants to make more than 32 colors available for
advertisement in a network"
I had gone back and forth with Adrian on language to scope this to a
single LSDB, so as to avoid the discussion of signaling EAG desire in
RSVP or PCEP. I don't want to add that sort of disclaimer here too,
as it makes the sentence clunky and unweildy.
eric
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Joel Halpern Direct
<[email protected]> wrote:
What if instead of "on the link" it is simoply "in the network". This
recommend the use of EAG whenever the operators is using more than 32 colors
across the link. It thus actually better aligns with avoiding the
under-claiming issue by suggesting that operators should use the EAG if they
have more than 32 candidate colors.
Yours,
Joel
PS: substituting wants for wishes is probably reasonable. If we talk about
network-wide you might even be able to us "intends".
On 4/25/14, 10:06 AM, Eric Osborne wrote:
Hi Joel-
Thanks for the review. On your minor issue:
---
I believe it is more accurate to say that it is to be used "when a
node wishes to advertise colors for a link which are not represented
in the first 32 bits of the color mask." The node may only wish to
advertise colors 7 and 60, but that will require the EAG.
---
I see your point, but I'm having trouble coming up with obvious text.
Deciding which colors are represented in a color mask is up to the
operator, which means it would have to say something like
"when a node wishes to advertise colors for a link which the operator
has defined to be outside the first 32 bits of the color mask".
but this would be the only use of 'color mask' in the document, and
it's not one I've seen used in any other docs around link coloring.
The whole sentence you refer to is:
" The EAG sub-TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups
when a node wishes to advertise more than 32 colors for a link."
If I rephrased it as
" The EAG sub-TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups
when an operator wants to make more than 32 colors available for
advertisement on a link"
would that do it?
s/wishes/wants/ while I'm here.
eric
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]>
wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-05
Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS-TE
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 24-April-2014
IETF LC End Date: 06-May-2014
IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standards
RFC
Major issues: N/A
Minor issues:
I believe that the description of when to use this EAG is slightly
misleading. The text says that EAG is to be used "when a node wishes to
advertise more than 32 colors for a link." I believe it is more accurate
to
say that it is to be used "when a node wishes to advertise colors for a
link
which are not represented in the first 32 bits of the color mask." The
node
may only wish to advertise colors 7 and 60, but that will require the
EAG.
Nits/editorial comments: N/A
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
