Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha

[Jamal Hadi Salim <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Jamal,
>
> Cut down to issues for debate...
>

>> 3654 and 3746 talked about the protocol in generalities.
>> 5810 talks about the protocol. It came later and is only added
>> there for sake of clarity of what we mean when we say PL.
>
> I have no issue with this text, per se. However, the top of the section is
> pretty clear that it is supposed to be a restatement of 3654 and 3746. You can't
> have this cake and eat it.
>


We'll fix the text to clarify.

>> "
>> The problem scope addressed by this document falls into 2 areas:
>>   1.  To describe with more clarity (than [RFC5810]) how current cold-
>>       standby approach operates within the NE cluster.
>>   2.  To describe how to evolve the [RFC5810] cold-standby setup to a
>>       hot-standby redundancy setup to improve the failover time and NE
>>       availability.
>> "
> [snip]
>> The goal is for someone reading 5810 and not getting clarity on the
> cold-standby HA\
>> to read this document instead. I think the part where you say "purely
> informational"
>> may be overriding that intent.
>
> OK. So it sounds (by point 1) like you *really* intend to update 5810 by
> providing new normative text for cold-standby. If that is the case, let's go for
> it full-steam ahead!

ok.

> - metadata for updates 5810
> - note in Abstract "This document updates RFC 5810 by doing foo"
> - paragraph in Introduction to explain the update
> - note in this section to say that this is a new normative description that
> updates 5810
>

Thanks for  catching this! Pretty sloppy of us.



>> Depends. I actually have seen the sticky prioritization scheme you have
> described being
>> requested for, but that desire subsidises after we describe that we  provide
> for the master
>> CE to change the mastership if the older CE shows  up again i.e whatever the
> FE does
>> it could be overriden by the CE.
>
> OK, if it is a deliberate decision.
>

It is -  when a CE dissappears in my experience at least it aint coming back
soon (either taken down for repair, or hardware failure).
So optimizing for that use case seemed reasonable (while providing a way for the
CE to override the policy).

cheers,
jamal