Rob - Please see inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:07 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: > (with COMMENT) > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot- > positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Alvaro's discuss. > [LES:] I have responded to Alvaro - please let me know if my response addresses your concern. > I would like to thank Menachem for the OPSDIR review. > [LES:] I addressed Menachem's comments in V4 of the draft. Please let me know if those changes are satisfactory. > I also have a few minor nits for the authors to consider: > > (1) p 3, sec 2. Problem Statement > > Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being > discussed. > > It was unclear what is meant by this, please clarify. I.e., Do you mean > described in this document? Or there is ongonig discussion in the WG? Or ... [LES:] I am unclear as to what is causing your confusion. The text in Section 2 states: "Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being discussed. The per-domain method [RFC5152] determines the path one domain at a time. The backward recursive method [RFC5441] uses cooperation between PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path. The sections that follow examine how inter-AS TE link information could be useful in both cases." The two methods are explicitly named and an RFC reference provided for each. Section 2.2 then discusses the per-domain method in more detail and Section 2.3 discusses the backward recursive method in more detail. Please help me understand why you find this confusing. > > (2) p 5, sec 2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination > > Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in > the ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to > reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, > and R8), and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity > to AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available > bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP. > Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3 > (say R9), > > Should this be "an entry ASBR" rather than "the entry ASBR"? > [LES:] OK > (3) p 7, sec 3. Extensions to ISIS-TE > > Also, two other new sub-TLVs are defined for > inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the TE Router > ID when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an > entire IS-IS routing domain. > > As a nit, I would put the last sentence above into its own paragraph. "This > document also defines two other new sub-TLVs ..." [LES:] OK > > (4) p 8, sec 3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV > > Rsvd bits MUST be zero when originated and ignored > when received. > > Perhaps "Reserved (Rsvd) bits MUST be zero ..." [LES:] OK Les > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
