Hi Tony,
On 18/08/2020 16:44, [email protected] wrote:
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.
I'm not sure what do you mean by 33. "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay"
is Type 34.
thanks,
Peter
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 DelayRFC8570 <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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
