Dear authors:
When reviewing the updates to draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11, I noticed the following difference with respect to draft-ietf-isis-te-app-12: [] draft-ietf-isis-te-app-12: 437 4.2.3. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics 439 [RFC8570] defines a number of dynamic performance metrics associated 440 with a link. It is conceivable that such metrics could be measured 441 specific to traffic associated with a specific application. 442 Therefore this document includes support for advertising these link 443 attributes specific to a given application. However, in practice it 444 may well be more practical to have these metrics reflect the 445 performance of all traffic on the link regardless of application. In 446 such cases, advertisements for these attributes will be associated 447 with all of the applications utilizing that link. [] draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11: 449 8. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics 451 [RFC7471] defines a number of dynamic performance metrics associated 452 with a link. It is conceivable that such metrics could be measured 453 specific to traffic associated with a specific application. 454 Therefore this document includes support for advertising these link 455 attributes specific to a given application. However, in practice it 456 may well be more practical to have these metrics reflect the 457 performance of all traffic on the link regardless of application. In 458 such cases, advertisements for these attributes can be associated 459 with all of the applications utilizing that link, for example, by 460 listing all applications in the Application Bit-Mask. The difference is in the last sentence: the OSPF draft points at how the user can associate the attributes with all the applications...while the ISIS draft just says that the "attributes will be associated with all of the applications". I'm assuming that the ISIS operation is similar: the new sub-TLV would have to include all the appropriate bits in the Application Bit-Mask. Is that a correct assumption, or will ISIS behave differently? Please clarify the text in the ISIS draft. As I mentioned in the thread about draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse, I am starting the IETF Last Call for both documents. We can work on this clarification during that time. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
