Re: [bess] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-08
tuexen@fh-muenster.de Thu, 23 September 2021 12:06 UTC
Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1213A2E1B;
Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.835
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665,
URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PBnb8P8xeHAh; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (mail-n.franken.de [193.175.24.27])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AC0D3A2E20;
Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown
[IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:307f:e67a:6177:5454])
(Authenticated sender: macmic)
by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE6DF721E2825;
Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:06:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Message-Id: <F7559048-9558-410C-8279-FB62B636AB33@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_8D371AAC-F82A-4271-A95C-7BB31536D8E0";
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:06:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR08MB7060DFDEB8C62108DF619C1FF7A39@BY3PR08MB7060.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>,
"last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.all@ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.all@ietf.org>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
References: <163104465318.23975.5628312446996160385@ietfa.amsl.com>
<BY3PR08MB7060DFDEB8C62108DF619C1FF7A39@BY3PR08MB7060.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/xQm3JCKUppgMZ81hlRdnAGson5M>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-08
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>,
<mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>,
<mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:07:04 -0000
> On 23. Sep 2021, at 12:30, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for the review. Just published revision 09 addressing your comments. > Please see in-line with [jorge]. Thanks for addressing the issues. I'm fine with the changes. Best regards Michael > Thanks! > Jorge > > From: Michael Tüxen via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 9:57 PM > To: tsv-art@ietf.org <tsv-art@ietf.org> > Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>rg>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.all@ietf.org>rg>, last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org> > Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-08 > > Reviewer: Michael Tüxen > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. > > I have not found issues related to transport. > However, I have two questions: > > Section 5.2 > What is the timer value for AR-REPLICATOR-activation-timer? > Are there dependencies to other parameters? > > [jorge] We clarified bullet ‘e’ as per the above questions. The new text in revision 9 reads: > > e. The use of an AR-REPLICATOR-activation-timer (in seconds, default > value is 3) on the AR-LEAF nodes is RECOMMENDED. Upon receiving > a new Replicator-AR route where the AR-REPLICATOR is selected, > the AR-LEAF will run a timer before programming the new AR- > REPLICATOR. In case of a new added AR-REPLICATOR, or in case the > AR-REPLICATOR reboots, this timer will give the AR-REPLICATOR > some time to program the AR-LEAF nodes before the AR-LEAF sends > BM traffic. The AR-REPLICATOR-activation-timer SHOULD be > configurable in seconds, and its value account for the time it > takes for the AR-LEAF Regular-IR inclusive multicast route to get > to the AR-REPLICATOR and be programmed. While the AR-REPLICATOR- > activation-time is running, the AR-LEAF node will use regular > ingress replication. > > > > > Section 6.2 > What is the timer value for timer t? > Are there dependencies to other parameters? > > [jorge] We clarified the use of the timers in 6.2. The new text reads: > > > > b. The AR-LEAF MAY advertise a Regular-IR route if there are RNVEs > in the BD. The Selective AR-LEAF MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route > after receiving a Replicator-AR route with L=1. It is > RECOMMENDED that the Selective AR-LEAF waits for a AR-LEAF-join- > wait-timer (in seconds, default value is 3) before sending the > Leaf A-D route, so that the AR-LEAF can collect all the > Replicator-AR routes for the BD before advertising the Leaf A-D > route. > > <snip> > > o In case of a failure on the selected AR-REPLICATOR, another > AR-REPLICATOR will be selected and a new Leaf A-D update will > be issued for the new AR-REPLICATOR. This new route will > update the selective list in the new Selective AR-REPLICATOR. > In case of failure on the active Selective AR-REPLICATOR, it > is RECOMMENDED for the Selective AR-LEAF to revert to IR > behavior for a timer AR-REPLICATOR-activation-timer (in > seconds, default value is 3) to speed up the convergence. > When the timer expires, the Selective AR-LEAF will resume its > AR mode with the new Selective AR-REPLICATOR. The AR- > REPLICATOR-activation-timer MAY be the same configurable > parameter as in Section 5.2. > > > > Nits: > > Abstract > Resolve BUM, resolve acronyms on first occurrence > > [jorge] done, thanks. > > > > Section 1 > BUM resolved after being used. > > [jorge] fixed it. Thanks. > > > > Section 10 > A implementation following -> An implementation following > > [jorge] fixed it. Thanks. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
- [bess] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bess… Michael Tüxen via Datatracker
- Re: [bess] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of d… tuexen