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

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Gorry,

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”.

Cheers,
Andy