Re: [tsvwg] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11.txt

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Fri, 12 February 2016 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D381A1F1D; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:03:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RU701-uXTpcU; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D5451A2130; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id gc3so26245229obb.3; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:03:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=yh4IMz+4Bmube+Ng4HEafgBokDG7NyRJqYcbb+aymGI=; b=rKyc1xGVpwteqUNRKXp1z17XeSb8TOO1tg5sbuig9pUuEzHu2yuS0pxCZHXUVYQDA8 I5xAhaH5VOEXGSGVnScydu1Qp0w/TIqrLkQPj/lpMkW70/mV/HshGCBtgwZ7kfTKetT/ b4jClyHGo9p3jj+uGJ+cSaRgvFmzyzWKwIijVHucq9/pTuyQgAvc5i5ZIUapyW41Bnwf Tu1pvls3jdoZCuk6AZPjaB3yjNL2O5q/ZR+jZqcuRW/fWWdN7Lh0Sv3EJqxXRyl/rWnG 8FVaaNv3VSi6wouhfypO/9rU2bMeuBj05oefQpm2J/UJctrdpA7nduAvTQkhD8jX8Dln 5pGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=yh4IMz+4Bmube+Ng4HEafgBokDG7NyRJqYcbb+aymGI=; b=cduEIRukwLjxtDZGR82V4hkGbR+TPK4WcOIAZnW47Jwyhlye6D5abU2yUvrMSvmUSy Om0wfNzN3PYAVShFl+ZpCM/+f+RUd9Qa9y8YzWR4Vz7WCxTrGEuBGUfirN0XGikiQvzb Px1kusMNifqhkZ12ZGpyB5U+ZsF0x6iC4B4CJfWA6V+rRvRWlj0pUI49ID+QyObA5C7W jC5lcJxDT+Xtp6zK0Qps7KEz5z8WeNgvU+zyKr/RGwmee8nj4Fgz17Ck+8Lx32bcZ8Ct yXjCujCEY/yJLvFFADdBDtkT87AHuEBltrMHsgx8OcvSkT48yRrQTb9VKYKFFvvBbhUf gGuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQG0NQHXjLagY80yIX+gG+mA2bf0Brm8p9gzXAPf4OoVPUisdE7nYMwYZZBnRWLFA/sV0s7DUTCw14oug==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ps4mr1959429obb.58.1455293001658; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:03:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:03:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:03:02 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11.txt
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01177c17687a38052b94ce64
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, IETF Discussion <>, "<>" <>,, IESG <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:03:23 -0000


Thank you for sending your comments, I have tried to make changes that
> incorporate comments from the various area reviews, and expect to shortly
> release an ID revision (12) that has these improvements. Details of the
> points addressed are below.

I’m glad to help. I noticed one new typo in your response, which may only
be in your email, but may be in the new text as well.

> Page 12, discussion of "In-Band" near the bottom of the page: This
> paragraph implies that an in-band control method will always provide
> fate-sharing of the control and regular traffic. It may provide
> fate-sharing, but that is by no means assured. For example, the network may
> be using ECMP, or traffic tunnels for data but not control traffic.
> -GF: Added: “This fate-sharing property is weaker when some or all of the
> measured traffic is sent using a path that differs from the path taken by
> the control traffic (e.g., where traffic follows a different path de to
> use of equal-cost multipath routing, traffic engineering, or tunnels for
> specific types of traffic). ”

Change “path de to” to “path due to”.