Hi Yingzhen, Thanks for the detailed review. I have incorporated all your comments in -12.
> On Dec 2, 2025, at 7:40 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi authors, > > Thanks for working on this document. I have some comments for you to consider. > > 1) > Section 2.2, the description and the topology of Figure 2 don't seem to > match. It seems there are two links between node A and B, A and C, C and D, > and B and D according to figure 3 and 4. Can you please confirm? Yes, the base topology is wrong as the links from A to B and C to D are to be used exclusively for flex algo. > > 2) > " > 3. LSLinkInfinity-Based Solution > " > Maybe change this to "LSLinkInfinity Based Solution"? I don't much care. It is a compound adjective modifying "solution" similar to "YANG-based" modifying "management-protocosl" in the YANG security template. However, the title reads well without the hyphenation and I changed it. > > 3) > In Section 3.1, "IGP metric" is used instead of "OSPF metric". There are multiples of these - I fixed them all. > > > 4) > " > Prior to this specification, OSPF treated links advertised as > LSLinkInfinity as reachable [RFC2328]. > " > Maybe "Prior to this specification, OSPF treated links with an advertised > metric of LSLinkInifinity as reachable." Sure. > > > 5) > Section 3.3 > RFC6987 applies to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, why is MaxReachableLinkMetric only > discussed for OSPFv2? Right, RFC 6987 allows the use of either MaxLinkMetric or the Router-LSA R-bit. I've updated "OSPFv2" to "OSPF". Recently, I worked on a customer POC involving OSPF and LDP and realized I needed to add RFC 5443 as well. This is included in section 3.4. Thanks, Acee > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
