Apologies .. the reply was sent too early. Pls see updates to the last set of comments... Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: 10 February 2025 10:07 To: Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18 Hi, Thanks for the review and comments. Pls see inline for replies <SH>... Ver-21 will address your comments. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Jürgen Schönwälder via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: 06 February 2025 18:48 To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18 and found it geneally well written and organized. I have no substantial technical comments, most of my comments are editorial or requests for clarification. - Is the title appropriate? Does it indicate to everyone that this is about routing metrics and routing algorithms? RFC 9350 has IGP in the name (which helps for those good at acronyms). Perhaps s/Flexible Algorithms/IGP Flexible Algorithms/ in alignment with RFC 9350? <SH> OK - From an operational perspective, is there a mechanism to efficiently debug any routing decisions taken and how different metrics have influenced them? More knobs can be lead to more surprises. Are there ways to determine whether a node correctly participates in specific FAD calculation? <SH> Both metric type based computation and FAD election were introduced in RFC 9350. The debugging aspect is not mentioned in RFC 9350 and Mostly left to implementations. - In section 2.1, I am unsure how the format shown in figure 1 relates to the enumeration a.-g. (if it is related at all). <SH> a - g are the TLVs in which this new sub-TLV can appear The statement before a-g list calrifies that "The Generic Metric sub-TLV is advertised in the TLVs/sub-TLVs below" - In section 3 just before 3.1, there is a missing space before Applications and a sentence ends with .". <SH> Fixed - In section 4, the last sentence of the first paragraph seems to be missing a word or more. <SH> fixed - I am not entirely sure about the formulas in Figure 4 and Figure 10. It is unclear what kind of numbers and operators are involved. Well, the division is said to be an integer division, but what about the other values/variables? What type and size do they have? And what exactly is "Modulus of(a,b)"? <SH> What goes on the wire is clearly defined. It is upto implementations to read those values and store Consistently. I'll add explanation for Modulus operation - In section 5, s/the the/the/ ? - In section 6, s/sec 13 of/Section 13 of/ - In section 7, s/Sec 13/Section 13/ <SH> Fixed -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
