Hi Peter, Les, Yes - thanks. I’ll complete the Shepherd’s report prior to the end of the WG last call.
Thanks, Acee > On Jan 28, 2025, at 13:42, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Peter – > > Thanx for doing this. > The changes look good to me. > > Les > > > From: Peter Psenak <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 5:28 AM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; Shraddha Hegde > <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call of "IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse > Affinity Constraint" - draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-03 > > Hi Acee, Shraddha, Yingzhen, Les, > > I have incorporated all your comments and published the new version of the > draft. > > thanks, > Peter > > On 17/01/2025 17:24, Acee Lindem wrote: > Speaking as WG member: > > I support publication. Flex algorithm has been successfully implemented and > deployed and it is great that we are extending it to additional uses cases. > > I do have a couple comments: > > 1. The concept of “reverse” is well known to those very familiar with the > IGPs. In this draft, it is represented both in terms of the SPF computation > and the traffic flows. I believe it should only be the former. I’ve tried to > correct this in the attached diff. It would be nice to have short definition > of the term but I won’t make you do that. > 2. The Abstract and Introduction should provide more information than > “additional constraints”. I’ve provided an alternative - feel free to edit. > 3. The OSPF Sub-TLVs should not refer to the IS-IS Sub-TLVs (especially > when the Sub-TLV behavior is so brief). RFC 7752 was the worst case of this > (where OSPF specifications pointed IS-IS encodings that weren’t the same) and > that was the most poorly written routing specification in the history of > poorly written routing specifications. > 4. Define the behavior the MUST contains are violated, e.g., log and > ignore the Sub-TLV. Gunter will certainly ask for this. > 4. Indicate in IANA section that the code points have been allocated via > the early allocation process. Change the text to “IANA has assigned the > following” rather than “This document registers following” > > 5. Remove the reference to I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con as it is not > referenced. > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > . > > > On Jan 16, 2025, at 14:02, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > LSR WG, > > > This email begins a 3 week WG Last Call for the following draft: "IGP > Flexible Algorithms Reverse Affinity Constraint" - > draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-03" > > Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by > February 7th, 2025. The extra week is to account for the Lunar New Year > holiday. > > Thanks, > Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
