Hi Tony, Sarah,
On 10/08/2020 18:00, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Peter,
The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as
defined in [RFC7810 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>]". When
reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs:
4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional
Link Delay Sub-TLV
Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max
Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay
carried in the subTLV be ignored?
flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link
Delay", which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link
Delay Sub-TLV".
The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV"
carries some other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the
flex-algo usage.
Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific
section?
which specific section do you have in mind?
In the flex algo draft, in section 5.1, you current have the text:
1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>].
Could you please change that to:
1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810>] Section 4.2.
I'm going to change the reference in section 5.1 to I-D.ietf-isis-te-app
to address the other concern that Gunter and you expressed.
I-D.draft-ietf-isis-te-app references RFC8570 for Min/Max Unidirectional
Link Delay Sub-TLV format, so we do not need to reference the RFC8570
here directly.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
