Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18: 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-flex-algo-bw-con/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Acee Lindem for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status, there is no justification for six authors though. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Support of metrics by IGP routers It is perhaps specified in other RFCs, but I failed to see the specification of what to do when a router receives a metric that it does not support. ### Section 1 Should the terms throughput be used in addition to bandwidth ? E.g., s/High bandwidth traffic/High throughput traffic/ ? s/This document proposes /This document specifies / (or "defines"), after all it will be published as a PS RFC ;-) Else, this section is super well written and easy to read. Suggest adding a reference to "PCE". ### Section 2 Suggest adding references to IS-IS and OSPF. Please expand "ASLA". ### Section 2.1 It took me a while to understand that figure 1 is not part of bullet item g. Please insert some leading text to ensure a clear understanding of the figure 1 between bullet g and the figure 1. Like done in section 2.2 for figure 2. ### Sections 2.1 & 2.2 `The value is taken from the "IGP metric-type" registry maintained by IANA`, but it was written previously that values 128-255 are for private use. ### Section 3.1.1 Should there be a reference to `IEEE floating point format (32 bits)` ? ### Section 10.1 Strongly suggest to add a reference to https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-metric-type rather than using "IGP Metric-type Registry" ## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## Requirements language While correct, it appears at an unusual location. I guess that the RFC editor will fix it. ### Section 2.1 s/0XFFFFFF/0xFFFFFF/ or be consistent on how to write hexadecimal constant. ### Section 9 s/When user defined metrics/When user-defined metrics/ ### Section 10.1 s/ pariticular / particular / ### Use of SVG graphics To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-) _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
