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

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

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."