Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Sep 2015, at 3:29, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> How about this:
>
> "If the operator is not concerned with the tLDP session flapping 
> and/or other procedures are in place to avoid this altogether, there 
> is no need to apply the delay."

That works for me. Thanks!

Ben.

>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.
>
>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:47, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 14:40, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:
>>
>>> -- 4.1.3, last paragraph:
>>>>>> Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it 
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> justify a MUST?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, its really an implementation choice to save resources being 
>>>>> using in deleting and re-creating the tLDP session. If the 
>>>>> implementation has means to deal with this or has other mechanism 
>>>>> to solve this problem, that is fine too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, A few words to that effect might be helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, in that section I’m already making the reader aware of the 
>>> fact that a tLDP session may be flapping due to link flapping, and 
>>> what solution can be applied to mitigate it. I don’t think more 
>>> words are necessary here. Are you ok if we keep it like it is?
>>
>> I meant a few words to explain why this is not a MUST, not the fact 
>> that the sessions may flap. For example something to the effect of 
>> "However, an implementation might have other mechanisms to prevent 
>> flapping, in which case the delay might not be needed."