Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[tony . li]

Hi Peter,

 The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in 
 [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I 
 found two Sub-TLVs:
 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link 
 Delay Sub-TLV
 Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max 
 Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay carried in 
 the subTLV be ignored?
>>> 
>>> flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", 
>>> which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV".
>>> 
>>> The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" carries some 
>>> other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the flex-algo usage.
>> Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific section?
> 
> which specific section do you have in mind?



In the flex algo draft, in section 5.1, you current have the text:

1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 
].

Could you please change that to:

1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 
] Section 4.2.

Thanks,
Tony

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[Sarah Chen]

Thank you, Peter, for the clarification.

It would be nice to add a reference to the section number Section 4.2
.

Thanks,
Sarah

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:56 AM Peter Psenak  wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> On 10/08/2020 16:21, tony...@tony.li wrote:
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> >
> >>> The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as
> >>> defined in [RFC7810 ]". When
> >>> reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs:
> >>> 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional
> >>> Link Delay Sub-TLV
> >>> Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max
> >>> Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay
> >>> carried in the subTLV be ignored?
> >>
> >> flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link
> >> Delay", which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
> >> Sub-TLV".
> >>
> >> The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" carries
> >> some other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the flex-algo usage.
> >
> >
> > Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific
> section?
>
> which specific section do you have in mind?
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
>
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[Peter Psenak]

Hi Tony,

On 10/08/2020 16:21, tony...@tony.li wrote:


Hi Peter,


The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as 
defined in [RFC7810 ]". When 
reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs:
4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional 
Link Delay Sub-TLV
Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max 
Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay 
carried in the subTLV be ignored?


flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link 
Delay", which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 
Sub-TLV".


The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" carries 
some other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the flex-algo usage.



Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific section?


which specific section do you have in mind?

thanks,
Peter




Thanks,
Tony



___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[tony . li]

Hi Peter,


>> The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in 
>> [RFC7810 > >]". When reading RFC7810, I found two 
>> Sub-TLVs:
>> 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link 
>> Delay Sub-TLV
>> Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max 
>> Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay carried in 
>> the subTLV be ignored?
> 
> flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", which 
> is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV".
> 
> The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" carries some 
> other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the flex-algo usage.


Could we please clarify this by adding a reference to the specific section?

Thanks,
Tony

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WGLC request for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang

[tom petch]

From: Lsr  on behalf of Yingzhen Qu 

Sent: 07 August 2020 22:55

Hi Chairs,

On behalf of the authors, I’d like to request WG LC of “YANG Model for OSPFv3 
Extended LSAs”: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/


This is a tough read.  I would like to compare the data structures with those 
in the RFC defining the LSA but the YANG module is devoid of such references. 
Adding those references would encourage me to review more.

And there are a number of admin issues.

Requirements lacks RFC8174 in the body of the I-D

I see no upper case words in the YANG module but you include the boilerplate.

Tree diagrams no reference

 means different I-D in different places

import lack references

security lacks TLS1.3

RFC8242 not in I-D References

RFC8174 not in I-D References

import OSPF must be Normative

Tom Petch



This model severs as a foundation for future OSPFv3 extensions using extended 
LSAs (RFC 8362) and will be augmented by those new features, such as OSPFv3 
Extensions for Segment Routing.

Please let us know if you need any other info.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[Peter Psenak]

Tony,

ok, seems like Gunter and you share the same concerns. Will clarify the 
two points discussed.


thanks,
Peter



On 07/08/2020 17:30, tony...@tony.li wrote:


Peter,



. The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding 
(RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link attributes. That is not correct based 
upon section 11. To avoid ambiguity can an explicit reference be added for 
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]?



well, section 5.1. is correct. The Min Unidirectional Link Delay and TE Default 
metric respectively were defined in RFC7810 and RFC5305. The fact that we 
advertise them in ASLA does not change their origin.



Could we please get a clarification in section 5.1 then?  The references there 
to 7810 and 5305 without any qualification strongly suggest that the encoding 
from those RFCs should be used.



Could in section 11 be explicit reference to (e)ag, te-metric and delay link 
attributes MUST be encoded using ASLA..


Section 11 already says:

   Link attribute advertisements that are to be used during Flex-
   Algorithm calculation MUST use the Application Specific Link
   Attribute (ASLA) advertisements defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] or
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse].

I'm not sure what else can we say. Listing the ones we use today wold be 
dangerous, because we may define additional ones later and we want the ASLA to 
be mandatory for all of them.



You could add a sentence that says:

In particular, the Min Unidirectional Link Delay, TE Default Metric, 
Administrative Group, Extended Administrative Group, Shared Risk Link Group 
Value TLVs are all to be encoded iin the ASLA advertisements for use with 
FlexAlgo.

Please add any I missed.

Regards,
Tony





___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

[Peter Psenak]

Hi Sarah,

On 08/08/2020 01:33, Sarah Chen wrote:

Hi, Peter,

The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined 
in [RFC7810 ]". When reading 
RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs:


4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link 
Delay Sub-TLV


Could you please clarify which one should be used? If "Min/Max 
Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" is used, will the max delay carried 
in the subTLV be ignored?


flex-algo as defined in the draft uses "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", 
which is advertised in the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV".


The fact that the "Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV" carries 
some other data (e.g. Max delay) is orthogonal to the flex-algo usage.


thanks,
Peter





Thanks,
Sarah

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 8:30 AM > wrote:



Peter,


 >> . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy
encoding (RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link attributes. That is
not correct based upon section 11. To avoid ambiguity can an
explicit reference be added for [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]?
 >
 >
 > well, section 5.1. is correct. The Min Unidirectional Link Delay
and TE Default metric respectively were defined in RFC7810 and
RFC5305. The fact that we advertise them in ASLA does not change
their origin.


Could we please get a clarification in section 5.1 then?  The
references there to 7810 and 5305 without any qualification strongly
suggest that the encoding from those RFCs should be used.


 >> Could in section 11 be explicit reference to (e)ag, te-metric
and delay link attributes MUST be encoded using ASLA..
 >
 > Section 11 already says:
 >
 >   Link attribute advertisements that are to be used during Flex-
 >   Algorithm calculation MUST use the Application Specific Link
 >   Attribute (ASLA) advertisements defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] or
 >   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse].
 >
 > I'm not sure what else can we say. Listing the ones we use today
wold be dangerous, because we may define additional ones later and
we want the ASLA to be mandatory for all of them.


You could add a sentence that says:

         In particular, the Min Unidirectional Link Delay, TE
Default Metric, Administrative Group, Extended Administrative Group,
Shared Risk Link Group Value TLVs are all to be encoded iin the ASLA
advertisements for use with FlexAlgo.

Please add any I missed.

Regards,
Tony

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr



___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr