Ok - I guess you can add a registry now if you want. We don’t have any WG drafts adding flex-algo rules but we have draft-gong-lsr-flex-algo-exclude-node as an individual draft. I seem to recall discussion as to whether this draft is necessary since a node could be excluded by not participating in the flex-algo.
Thanks, Acee > On Jan 28, 2025, at 13:58, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > we require strict ordering - it may not be necessary now, but in the future > we may introduce something that will need it, so we started to enforce it > from day 1. > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 28/01/2025 19:54, Acee Lindem wrote: >> Speaking as WG member: >> >> Hi Les, Peter, Shraddha, >> >>> On Jan 24, 2025, at 10:34 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I have reviewed the draft and support moving ahead with publishing this as >>> an RFC. >>> >>> The primary use case is well described in Section 3 of the draft. Note this >>> is NOT, as some folks have mistakenly inferred from the draft title, aimed >>> at multicast RPF use cases. >>> >>> As regards the evolving set of rules for flex-algo calculations, I think >>> the current model of adding an appendix with the full list of updated rules >>> is problematic. >>> We now have three documents which define rules: >>> >>> RFC 9350 >>> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con >>> draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity >>> >>> Each document is accurate based on the rules defined at the time of >>> publication. >>> But as each document is published - with potentially more on the way - it >>> becomes difficult to know which is the "latest". >>> Readers of one document might not be aware of the other documents. >>> >>> Perhaps the authors of the two drafts above could consider introducing an >>> IANA Registry which has the ordered list of rules (and appropriate >>> references for each) so that there is one source of truth. >>> Each document would then simply specify the updates to the IANA registry. >> I don't think we need this, since all the interface constraints need to be >> satisfied for an interface to used in a given flex algorithm, I don't see >> that the ordering of the rules is important. >> >> Maybe the text in the two flex-algo drafts which are going to progress and >> be published shouldn't imply strict ordering. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> >> >> >>> Les >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:03 AM >>>> To: lsr <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call of "IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse >>>> Affinity Constraint" - draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-03 >>>> >>>> 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] >> >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
