Hi Peter,
> section 5.1 of the draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo says: > > Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. > > We explicitly say "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", so this cannot be mixed > with other delay values (max, average). The problem is that that does not exactly match “Unidirectional Link Delay” or “Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay”, leading to the ambiguity. Without a clear match, you leave things open to people guessing. Now, it’s a metriic, so of course, you always want to take the min. So type 33 seems like a better match. > > > section 7.3. of ietf-isis-te-app says: > > Type Description Encoding > Reference > --------------------------------------------------------- > 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay RFC8570 > And it also says: 33 Unidirectional Link Delay RFC8570 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570> This does not help. > So, IMHO what we have now is correct and sufficient, but I have no issue > adding the text you proposed below. What you have now is ambiguous. We have a responsibility, as writers of specifications, to be precise and clear. We are not there yet. > BTW, before I posted 09 version of flex-algo draft, I asked if you were fine > with just referencing ietf-isis-te-app in 5.1. I thought you were, as you did > not indicate otherwise. My bad, I should have pressed the issue. > Anyway, I consider this as a pure editorial issue and hopefully not something > that would cause you to object the WG LC of the flex-algo draft. I’m sorry, I think that this is trivially resolved, but important clarification. You also have an author’s email that is bouncing, so at least one more spin is required. Sorry, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
