Comments on draft-lu-isis-transaction-tlv-00

Wenhu/Albert -

I acknowledge that the problem which this draft is trying to address
exists - at least in theory - but I am concerned as to whether the
solution offered will actually result in significant benefits. Here's
why.

ISO 10589 highly recommends that once a particular advertisement is
assigned to a given LSP that it not be gratuitously moved to an LSP with
a different number. (See Section 7.3.4.4) This means that the example
you provide in Section 1.3 of the draft is something that should be
avoided - and can be avoided in most (but admittedly not all) cases.
This fact alone lessens the value of your proposal.

ISO 10589 also recommends that if a particular advertisement is moved to
an LSP with different # that the two affected LSPs be flooded "as an
atomic action".

In the context of fast convergence behavior, implementations have taken
advantage of ISO 10589 Note 35 so that when multiple LSPs need to be
flooded "atomically" the default delay between transmission of LSPs on
the same circuit is not required for modest burst sizes.

Implementations also support delayed triggering of the Decision Process
in a way which provides for quick response time - but delays long enough
for multiple LSP updates to be processed if they are sent as per the
guidelines above.

What this draft tries to address is the cases where multiple LSP updates
are required to provide all the updates for a particular event. It