[Gen-art] Gen Art LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11
Avshalom Houri <AVSHALOM@il.ibm.com> Fri, 04 September 2009 12:53 UTC
Return-Path: <AVSHALOM@il.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AB03A69F1 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.897, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tK-cfG4jvigI for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com (mtagate3.de.ibm.com [195.212.17.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C798E3A6A0E for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n84CrU3h005937 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:53:30 GMT
Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n84CrU8o2711770 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:53:30 +0200
Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n84CrUTL004002 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:53:30 +0200
Received: from d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.114]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n84CrUwI003999; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:53:30 +0200
To: mshand@cisco.com, stbryant@cisco.com, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: A87AF81D:E5AD715C-C2257627:0046AD31; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008
From: Avshalom Houri <AVSHALOM@il.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OFA87AF81D.E5AD715C-ONC2257627.0046AD31-C2257627.0046D01A@il.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:53:28 +0300
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12MC102/12/M/IBM(Release 8.5|December 05, 2008) at 04/09/2009 15:53:29, Serialize complete at 04/09/2009 15:53:29
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0046CDF9C2257627_="
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen Art LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:53:30 -0000
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11 Reviewer: Avshalom Houri Review Date: 2009-09-04 IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-04 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an informational RFC. There are a few issues that have to be resolved first. Major issues: Lines 716-718 - (Security Considerations) It may be reasonable that the framework does not introduce new security threats but it seems that there should be more explanations regarding security and possible security issues that may arise from fast reroute. This framework document does not itself introduce any security issues, but attention must be paid to the security implications of any proposed solutions to the problem. Minor issues: It may be good to do some English editorial review on the document. Lines 151-155 - hard to understand the meaning of the paragraph. Probably the "This is" is redundant as in other definitions LFA Loop Free Alternate. This is a neighbor N, that is not a primary next-hop neighbor E, whose shortest path to the destination D does not go back through the router S. The neighbor N must meet the following condition:- Lines 178-182 - Sentence is too circular. Loop Free Link Protecting Alternate This is a path via a Loop-Free Neighbor N_i which does not go through the particular link of S which is being protected to reach the destination D. Lines 184-188 - Sentence is too circular. Loop Free Node-protecting Alternate This is a path via a Loop-Free Neighbor N_i which does not go through the particular primary neighbor of S which is being protected to reach the destination D. Lines 329-348 - It seems that what is meant is that two mechanisms should be used. In order to achieve packet disruption times which are commensurate with the failure detection times two factors must be considered:- 1. The provision of a mechanism for the router(s) adjacent to the failure to rapidly invoke a repair path, which is unaffected by any subsequent re-convergence. 2. In topologies that are susceptible to micro-loops, the provision of a mechanism to prevent the effects of any micro-loops during subsequent re-convergence. Lines 530-531 - The "Any figures" sentence should be in the beginning of the document. dependent on the detailed topology and metrics. Any figures quoted in this document are for illustrative purposes only. Nits/editorial comments: Lines 285-286 - put hello in as e.g. "hello" or Hello layer, up to several tens of seconds when a routing protocol hello is employed. During this period packets will be Line 322-323: "this is as a result" - rephrase When micro-loops occur, this is as a result of the different times at which routers update their forwarding tables to reflect the failure. Line 599 - add (SRLG) after "Shared Risk Link Groups", since it is used later. Shared Risk Link Groups are an example of multiple related failures, --Avshalom
- [Gen-art] Gen Art LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-i… Avshalom Houri