[Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt

"Eric Gray (LO/EUS)" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Thu, 16 August 2007 19:32 UTC

Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILl4n-0005gC-Mg; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:13 -0400
Received: from gen-art by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILl4m-0005g3-2Y for gen-art-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:12 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILl4l-0005fv-O6 for gen-art@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:11 -0400
Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILl4l-0002Si-A0 for gen-art@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:32:11 -0400
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l7GJa80O023474; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:36:09 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:31:57 -0500
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:31:56 -0500
Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF016BFC7F@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <042601c7e036$e0ed1c80$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
Thread-Index: AcfgN5nlLlsPhLn4S2OhThxaNX2o1gAAxMfg
References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01696137@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <042601c7e036$e0ed1c80$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
From: "Eric Gray (LO/EUS)" <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>, Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@nuovasystems.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2007 19:31:57.0427 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BE91C30:01C7E03C]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

Adrian,

	As a further clarification on one point...

...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > After "However:" in section 3.2, I would suggest some form of
> > modification or qualification of the first bullet similar to:
> >
> > - A domain border node MUST NOT passively suppress propagation
> >  of a PathErr message.
> >
> > Clearly, if the device applies a successful crankback approach,
> > it does not make sense for it to propagate the PathErr anyway.
> 
> OK. This was obviously not sufficiently clear.
> It was meant to imply that the PathErr must
> - either be propagated
> - or dropped because some other action has been applied
> In other words, a PathErr must not simply be dropped 
> according to policy, 
> whim, or misadventure.
> (Actually, misadventure can occur because of the nature of IP :-)
> 
> We can try to expan the text to make "passively suppress" less opaque.

Just to be clear, "passively" was what I added in the suggested 
example of how to "fix" the problem.

>From what you say, it is not the intention that the domain border
LSR should be allowed to drop the PathErr without taking some sort
of action - hence my suggestion to add "passively".  However, that
doesn't seem to clear it up enough.

I felt that the statement does not need too much improvement since
the example of holding the PathErr while the boundary LSR tries an
alternative (or two) follows very shortly after the statement.  So,
I was suggesting adding a weak qualifier to keep from implying that 
the PathErr MUST be forwarded under all circumstances - only to 
follow shortly with an example of when it might make sense to not 
do so.

If the example clearly said that - on subsequently succeeding - the
initial PathErr would (clearly) not need to be propagated, then I
would have ignored the previous statement (even though still a bit
inconsistent).



_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art