Hi Russ, 

I won't have time to read your new version this week but you should align your 
distributed algorithm with  the WG flooding infra-structure draft. Anything 
that doesn't fit should remain in the OpenFrabric experimental draft. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 4/1/19, 5:45 AM, "Lsr on behalf of [email protected]" <[email protected] 
on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    
    > 1)Section 3 defines an algorithm which is used to "calculate" the flooding
    > topology. As such, this draft is not an alternative to 
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
    > flooding.  It is simply one of potentially many drafts which may be 
written
    > which will define such an algorithm, Note that definition of algorithms is
    > outside the scope of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.
    
    Correct. This was my initial impression when I read 
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.
    
    > I think this should be made clear in your draft.
    
    Sure -- I can add this bit.
    
    > 2)The use of Circuit Scoped LSPs (RFC 7356) to flood standard L1/L2 LSPs 
to
    > "DNR" nodes as defined in Section 3.1 of the draft is an invalid usage of 
CS-
    > LSPs. The content of CS-LSPs is NOT identical to standard LSPs and the 1:1
    > equivalence you seem to require is inconsistent with RFC 7356.
    
    Hm... I will need to look at this -- it might be worth chatting about this 
off line to see how to bring this in line. 
    
    > 3)The adjacency formation logic discussed in Section 2 isn’t directly 
relevant
    > to calculating a flooding topology. There are existing implementations 
which
    > use the techniques you define as a means of reducing redundant flooding
    > associated with adjacency bringup when there are parallel links between 
two
    > nodes. Note this can be (and is) done without  requiring protocol
    > extensions/specification i.e., a node can do this today without 
introducing
    > any interoperability issues. So while this is definitely a good idea, it 
isn’t
    > directly related to the work on flooding topologies and I think is better
    > removed from the draft.
    
    Okay -- it seems like this technique is not documented anyplace, and could 
be used for all adjacencies.
    
    😊 /r
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
    

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to