Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Chris:

Hi!

It looks good to me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

From: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: November 6, 2017 at 3:10:52 PM
To: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, The IESG
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Subject:  RE: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06:
(with COMMENT)

Alvaro,
>
> Thanks for the comment. See responses inline with [CB]. Comments are
> addressed in this diff:
>
>
> https://github.com/cbowers/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt/commit/38c71cad758ecec6f41caaccdac38abf20e6ef3b
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:49 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: (with
> COMMENT)
>
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) I think that Section 4.4. (Interaction of MRT-related LDP
> advertisements with the MRT topology and computations) would benefit from a
> reference to
> rfc5443 (LDP IGP Synchronization).
> =====
> [CB] Good point. I added the following text to section 4.4.
>
> [RFC5443] "LDP IGP Synchronization" addresses the issue of the LDP
> topology not matching the IGP topology by the advertising the maximum
> IGP cost on links where LDP is not fully operational. This makes the
> IGP topology match the LDP topology. As described in Section 7.3.1
> of [RFC7812], MRT is designed to be compatible with the LDP IGP
> synchronization mechanism. When the IGP advertises the maximum cost
> on a link where LDP is not fully operational, the link is excluded
> from MRT Island formation, which prevents the MRT algorithm from
> creating any paths using that link.
>
> =====
> (2) From Section 5: "The associated LSPs must be created before a failure
> occurs..." Should that be a Normative MUST?
>
> I rewrote the sentence as follows to avoid ambiguity.
>
> In order to provide protection paths which are
> immediately usable by the point of local repair in the event of a
> failure, the associated LSPs need to be created before a failure
> occurs.
>