Re: Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-07

"Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <> Thu, 26 January 2017 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023DD1295CF; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:05:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.709
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zmRsA2b3hW8q; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C39D1295D6; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:05:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=79446; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485439540; x=1486649140; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=E+aRxipe1XHLjEPCoWuHA4kmSYVQ3+Pp/BtF2UZQtxo=; b=Je/GVobrbClneTeOSNDT0FVWEaGQBQPMw7AyvUimMuYFa4daBhB/dnu4 SvsaJpU/1OLeRQbEAAwPZxEnHq/eBcXFLgQhPOUbYwYUUJokoQwk2Aqw5 sOVkIVF1QUPyhPNgrXPLK9tllgKsUiGvpCjpSkfj5kgSpZ/6UFRKRIvQw 0=;
X-Files: Diff_ draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-07.txt - draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-08.html : 53729
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,289,1477958400"; d="html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="376842861"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jan 2017 14:05:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0QE5c4H030661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:05:38 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:05:37 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:05:37 -0600
From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <>
To: Dale Worley <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-07
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-07
Thread-Index: AQHSdbz3neBdDdbGgkq0vqdxReRQJqFK39EA
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:05:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_92179CBF61824A1C8DCB53EB1099D7DAciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:05:43 -0000

Thank you Dale for the thorough review of the document. Please see the attached diff file with the changes.

Please see inline for the replies <RG> ..

On 2017-01-23, 4:09 PM, "Dale Worley" <> wrote:

    Reviewer: Dale Worley
    Review result: Ready with Nits
    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 wait for direction from your
    document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
    For more information, please see the FAQ at
    Document:  draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-07
    Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
    Review Date:  23 Jan 2017
    IETF LC End Date:  17 Jan 2017
    IESG Telechat date:  2 Feb 2017
           This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
           that should be fixed before publication.
    There remain a few editorial items:
    2. Conventions Used in This Document	
        The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in	
        [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC4872], [RFC4873] and [RFC4427].	
    That is a significant help to the reader, but it's also rather
    intimidating!  Is there a way to point out that 4427 is specific to

<RG> Yes, added.    

    3.1.1.  1+R Restoration
       Unlike a protecting LSP which is set up before the failure, a
       restoration LSP is set up per need basis, after the failure.
    Probably better to change "per need basis" to "when needed".

<RG> Yes, edited.

    3.2. Resource Sharing By Restoration LSP	
    "By" generally should not be capitalized in titles, as it is a

<RG> Edited.
                                   +-----+      +-----+
                                   |  F  +------+  G  +--------+
                                   +--+--+      +-----+        |
                                      |                        |
                                      |                        |
            +-----+    +-----+     +--+--+      +-----+     +--+--+
            |  A  +----+  B  +-----+  C  +--X---+  D  +-----+  E  |
            +-----+    +-----+     +-----+      +-----+     +-----+
              Figure 3: Resource Sharing in 1+R Recovery Scheme
       [...]  Nodes A and B
       reconfigure the resources to set up the restoration LSP by sending
       cross-connection command to the data plane.
       In the recovery scheme employing revertive behavior, after the
       failure is repaired, the resources on nodes A and B need to be
       reconfigured to set up the working LSP.  The traffic is then
       back to the original working LSP.  
    It's not clear to me why nodes A and B are reconfigured and/or do the
    reconfiguring.  Any "global" reconfiguring would be driven by the
    head-end A alone, I think.  Any "local" reconfiguring would be done
    C and possibly E.  Though perhaps there is reconfiguring that must be
    done along the entire path, but that would be attributed to A, B, C,
    F, G, and E together.  I suspect there is a trivial editorial error
<RG> Corrected the text. I made an error in the last update when addressing your comment.

Rakesh (for authors and contributors)