Hi Authors, I don’t think we’ve completely closed on this. Zahed is asking for Section 3 to be tightened a little bit. The authors haven’t either said “no we won’t” or proposed text. In hopes of provoking some forward motion, here’s an attempt of my own, based on my understanding of the conversation so far. My straw man suggestion is to insert this paragraph at the beginning of Section 3.1:
In this subsection, we illustrate one use case that motivates this specification: if a specific service can be identified by an IP address, traffic to it can use constraint-based paths computed according to this specification. Zahed, if this works for you, please ack. If it doesn’t work for you, please propose text. Authors, same to you. Also, if you do decide to do another revision, can you fix this nit I noticed in Section 5 of version 15? (There’s no need to cut a new version just for this change, no doubt the RFC Editor would catch it too.) OLD: Only node that is participating in the Flex-Algorithm is: * Able to compute path for such Flex-Algorithm * Part of the topology for such Flex-Algorithm NEW: Only a node that is participating in a Flex-Algorithm is: * Able to compute a path for such Flex-Algorithm * Part of the topology for such Flex-Algorithm (Adds the indefinite article in two places, changes definite article to indefinite in one place.) Thanks, —John > On Jun 9, 2023, at 11:30 AM, John Scudder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Ok. > > —John > >> On Jun 9, 2023, at 11:28 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 15:09, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Zahed, >> >> > On Jun 8, 2023, at 6:42 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I can help with text if I can understand use case better. Right now that >> > is not the case. >> >> Do you understand the use case and intent of the section well enough now >> that you’d be able to propose text? >> >> Jhon, I think my latest responses to Peter’s mail should shed lights on what >> part is missing in the example description. I think it is better that the >> authors take a stab at it, then I will review and amend if needed. >> >> Makes sense? >> >> // Zahed >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HM2JE8-oV_8v4Inl3lW3zP44k8Mds02JL35t9zRtVIiYXqW0WRekp4sGpHfoAE39uJKvVGD83RqfBcoYppfXRmgjZsKX$ > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
