John –
Bruno wrote the new text – so best if we wait for him to respond. Looks like he
will be back next week.
But my understanding is that your interpretation is correct. If Bruno agrees,
then we can spin a new version with better wording.
Thanx for your feedback and patience.
Les
From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 10:38 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org;
lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Zaheduzzaman Sarker
<zahed.sarker.i...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-10: (with COMMENT)
Thanks for the ping, Acee.
Looking at the latest version I have one question. The revised Section 6.2.2
says,
Whereas flow control prevents the sender from overwhelming the
receiver, congestion control prevents senders from overwhelming the
network. For an IS-IS adjacency, the network between two IS-IS
neighbors is relatively limited in scope and includes a single link
which is typically over-sized compared to the capability of the IS-IS
speakers. Only implementing flow control Section 6.2.1 is expected
to give good results and be enough if the internals or the receiver
is not significantly dropping LSP. Otherwise, adding congestion
control will help handling congestion of LSPs in the receiver.
I don’t understand what the new “only implementing flow control” sentence
means. Maybe it means something like, “In situations where the probability of
LSP drop is low, flow control [Section 6.2.1] is expected to give good results,
without the need to implement congestion control”. But maybe it doesn’t mean
that, I can’t tell for sure.
I’d appreciate a clarification from the authors (or someone else who knows!)
and probably one more revision to make the sentence more understandable. After
that, let’s ship it.
Thanks,
—John
On May 9, 2024, at 12:27 PM, Acee Lindem
<acee.i...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hey John,
Is there anything more that needs to be done by the authors?
Thanks,
Acee
On May 2, 2024, at 9:05 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker
<nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:
Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-10: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FeiWW24FwHcnwOkXm0kSg8nkuiR_EXpMYeXN5C4TXj_zmXX_sX6BykCYqyqe2WgI8bRUzsJGsOcpqsM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FeiWW24FwHcnwOkXm0kSg8nkuiR_EXpMYeXN5C4TXj_zmXX_sX6BykCYqyqe2WgI8bRUzsJGsOcpqsM$>
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FeiWW24FwHcnwOkXm0kSg8nkuiR_EXpMYeXN5C4TXj_zmXX_sX6BykCYqyqe2WgI8bRUzsJGEt32q7I$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FeiWW24FwHcnwOkXm0kSg8nkuiR_EXpMYeXN5C4TXj_zmXX_sX6BykCYqyqe2WgI8bRUzsJGEt32q7I$>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for addressing my discuss points and comments. It was great to work with
you all. I think the current version of this document is better, hence, cleared
my discuss.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
