Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn Thu, 21 January 2021 10:03 UTC
Return-Path: <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E53F3A186F; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:03:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 y5cFnd1bRioV; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxde.zte.com.cn (mxde.zte.com.cn [209.9.37.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE8223A186E; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-eu.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.35.13.51]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 800F2A6AF51B4E9C6D50; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dgapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.35.13.17]) by mse-eu.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 10LA38tW031272; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:08 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (dgapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid1; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:11 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:11 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa6009515f7e831bc2
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202101211803112004562@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <160799060426.8598.6736717839856875163@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: 160799060426.8598.6736717839856875163@ietfa.amsl.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
To: noreply@ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-eu.zte.com.cn 10LA38tW031272
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/SyEerFWLjdDqxE5oTf0nLJK23o0>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:03:21 -0000
Dear Linda, I updated a new version. I hope it resolved your concerns. https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rift-applicability-04.txt Comments and suggestions are always welcome. Best Regards, Yuehua Wei M: +86 13851460269 E: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn 原始邮件 发件人:LindaDunbarviaDatatracker 收件人:gen-art@ietf.org; 抄送人:rift@ietf.org;last-call@ietf.org;draft-ietf-rift-applicability.all@ietf.org; 日 期 :2020年12月15日 08:03 主 题 :Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03 Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review result: Not Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-3 Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review Date: 2020-12-14 IETF LC End Date: None IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document claims to describe the properties and the applicability of RIFT in different deployment scenarios and highlight the operational simplicity of RIFT. But I find the description is not complete. For example, I can't find any sections describing "the consideration when RIFT is used with or without overlays", nor can I find how RIFT is operationally simpler than Link State protocol. Major issues: Section 3.1 Overview of RIFT listed many benefits of RIFT, but doesn't have any description how those benefits are realized by RIFT. Strongly suggest to have a reference to each of the benefits described in the Section 3.1. There is one statement saying that RIFT uses Link State for the north direction and Distance Vector for the south direction, therefore, RIFT has the benefits of both. But the document doesn't have any description on why RIFT didn't inherent the disadvantages of both. Minor issues: The document uses many acronyms that don't have reference nor definitions: Section 3.2.1 - What do "PoD" and "multi-plane" mean? - What do N-SPF and S-SPF stand for? Section 3.3.1: What does it mean by saying "application in underlay of data center IP fabrics"? Do you mean "applications connected by Clos architecture in DC "? Section 3.3.3 Last sentence: "Moreover, due the limited size of forwarding tables ..." How do the active elements of building cabling related to the "limited sizes of forwarding tables"? Section 3.3.4: First sentence: "It is common ... to use fabrics when crossbar is not feasible" Do you mean "Clos Fabrics"? Section 4: what does "minimum blast radius" mean? What aspects of "extensive Zero Touch Provisioning" achieved by RIFT that can't be achieved by Link State protocols? "RIFT negotiates automatically BFD per link". RIFT uses Link State for North Bound, does it inherit all the properties from Link State (OSPF or IS/IS)? There is no description on how RIFT can automate BFD better than OSPF or IS/IS. "RIFT reduces FIB size towards the bottom of the IP fabric". Do you mean RIFT reduces FIB size for leaf nodes? Page 13: "without disaggregation mechanism, when linkSL6 fails, ..." When Link State protocol is used , if LinkSL6 fails, packets towards prefix 122 should go through LinkSL5-> LinkSL7->LinkSL8. How does it go through linkSL5->LinkT3? Page 16: "the RIFT control protocol can discover the physical links and detect cabling that violates fat-tree". Is it by configuration on the Leaf nodes? Page 25: What is "LIEs"? what is "TIEs"? Page 26: What is "PGP reference"? Nits/editorial comments: Cheers, Linda Dunbar
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-r… Linda Dunbar via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… wei.yuehua