Subject: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-pcr-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 00:01:59 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-pcr-04: 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-pcr/

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

As mentioned by the Linda Dunbar in her OPS-DIR review:
Minor issues:

Why the Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV is not same as the Bandwidth Sub-TLV
defined by 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07#page-10?

Need to make sure that the Bandwidth Sub-TLV (unidirectional available
bandwidth, unidirectional utilized bandwidth sub-TLV, etc), of
draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions is consistent. 

Regards, Benoit

---

From: János Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:42:39 +0100

Hi Benoit and Linda,

Thank you very much for the review!

RFC5305 and draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions have been used as basis 
for draft-ietf-isis-pcr, both of them are included in the normative 
references. Section 4 lists RFC5305 and 
draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions sub-IS-IS TLVs that may be used by 
IS-IS PCR including Bandwidth sub-TLVs; they are listed on page 8.

draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions defines multiple Bandwidth sub-TLVs 
of exactly the same form (except for the different values of the Type 
parameter). These Bandwidth sub-TLVs have different purpose. (4.5.  
Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV, 4.6. Unidirectional Available 
Bandwidth Sub-TLV, 4.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV) All 
these sub-TLVs are stored in the Traffic Engineering Database (TED).

The Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV has a different purpose compared to the 
Bandwidth sub-TLVs of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions. Bandwidth 
Constraint sub-TLV specifies constraint for constrained routing. The 
Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV is compared to the TED to decide whether or 
not the constraint is met. Furthermore, Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV 
defines additional parameters (PCP, DEI), which are are needed but not 
provided by either of the isis-te-metric-extensions sub-TLVs. Thus, the 
new sub-TLV provides the new parameters and clear distinction in the 
purpose.

Consistency with isis-te-metric-extensions and RFC5305 is ensured 
because the Available Bandwidth parameter of the Bandwidth Constraint 
sub-TLV is encoded exactly the same way as the bandwidth parameter of 
the TLVs specified in isis-te-metric-extensions and RFC5305 . This is 
also necessary to be able to compare the parameter of the Bandwidth 
Constraint sub-TLV with the TED. (It is explained in  item g) of Section 
6.3 in draft-ietf-isis-pcr.)

Best regards,
Janos

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:15:06 -0800

Thank you.

Regards, Benoit