"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" writes:
Perhaps the somewhat unfortunate choice of the name of the registry - which
inserts the codepoint for all the TLVs supported by the registry into the
registry name - feeds into this confusion.
If so, I would suggest renaming the registry to: "Sub-TLVs for
Hi Pengshaofu,
Pls see inline..
Juniper Business Use Only
From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 7:26 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org;
draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible
Hi Peng Shaofu,
> On May 19, 2021, at 6:55 PM, peng.sha...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
> Let's go back to the bandwidth-metric related to bandwidth capability. My
> worry is that bandwidth-metric (whether it is automatically calculated or
> manually configured) is not cumulative in nature, which is
Alvaro -
I don’t find the referenced draft relevant to this case.
Our difference of opinion has to do with the function of a codepoint registry.
Registries are created as a place to both document existing codepoints and to
be updated when the need for additional codepoints arises.
There is no
My final input would be that it is important to maintain the linkages. So if an
RFC creates a registry and then that registry's name is changed by another RFC
then, unfortunately, I think that the second RFC updates the first.
Otherwise I agree with Les.
How about we pick names that don't
Hi Tom,
I would agree with your assessment. However, I'd also put this draft in the
"wisdom to know the difference" category. I won't speak for the rest of the WG
but fixing it isn't a priority for me.
Thanks,
Acee
On 5/18/21, 5:46 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" wrote:
Looking at
Hi Shraddha,
Thanks. Actually, I don't really want to define other metric types.
Let's go back to the bandwidth-metric related to bandwidth capability. My worry
is that bandwidth-metric (whether it is automatically calculated or manually
configured) is not cumulative in nature, which is
Hi Shraddha,
Thanks for your reply. Please see further inline:
From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shrad...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:18 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>>; Acee
Lindem (acee)
mailto:acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
>[Jie] I can understand how this works for a single Flex-Algo, while my
>question was if more than one Flex-Algo use
>bandwidth as constraint to exclude some links, what would be the consequence
>to the network?
Operators design and plan whether one flex-algo is suitable for their network
or
Hi Eric,
thanks for comments, please see inline (##PP):
On 18/05/2021 18:05, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
Hello Peter,
Thank you for your quick reply and addressing my non-blocking COMMENTs.
You may want to have a look at EV> below (again non blocking)
Regards
-éric
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak
Date: Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 13:39
To: Eric Vyncke , The IESG
Cc:
Les:
Hi!
In this case the name is being changed, a new column is added, and all
the existing code points are updated in light of the new column.
I realize this may not be enough for you. Instead of all of us
discussing this specific case, we should focus our energy on clearly
defining what
12 matches
Mail list logo
