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