I have reviewed the change in -10 and it seems fine to me.  Objection 
withdrawn. I support publication.

Tony


> On Aug 17, 2020, at 4:47 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after September 1st, 2020, for 
>> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I’d like to raise an objection.
> 
> Recently, I requested (and I thought that Peter agreed to) a clarification of 
> the Min Unidirectional Link Delay.
> 
> As of version -08, the draft references RFC 7810 for the Metric-type in 
> Section 5.1.  
> 
> That RFC defines both a “Unidirectional Link Delay” (section 4.1) and 
> “Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay” (section 4.2).
> 
> I requested that the reference be extended to specify the section.
> 
> Instead, as of -09, the reference has been changed to refer to 
> ietf-isis-te-app.  This is somewhat helpful becuase it makes it clear that 
> this should be found
> in the Application Specific Link Attributes Sub-TLV, but it still does not 
> resolve the ambiguity of which sub-sub-TLV should be used.
> 
> I would again request that this be clarified.  Proposed text:
> 
>       1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC 7810], section 4.2, 
> encoded in the Application Specific Link Attributes Sub-TLV 
> [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app].
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to