Subject: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 09:02:25 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read.

Like other ADs, I wonder why the IS-IS and OSPF are separate documents.

Please find below one NIT.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== NIT ==

-- section 4 --
The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if
we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 19:14:14 +0200

Hi Eric,

please see inline:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/

Alvaro has responded to similar query from Barry Leiba.

> we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)

ok, what would you like to say instead "one"?

Would this be better:

If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of 
reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the 
smallest value found across all of its interfaces.

thanks,
Peter

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 19:50:26 +0000

Peter,

I will have a look for Alvaro's reply to Barry's comment then :)

The suggested text below will fix the nit indeed.

Thank you

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 19:14
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Eric,

    please see inline:

    Would this be better:

    thanks,
    Peter

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 20:37:18 +0000

Hi Eric,

On 5/11/20, 3:50 PM, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Peter,

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/EcufJn28CFrGkfQ2k6LUOYBcZXc/

Thanks,
Acee

    Thank you

    -éric

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
    Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 19:14
    To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
    Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
    Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: (with COMMENT)

        Hi Eric,

        please see inline:

        Would this be better:

        thanks,
        Peter