Re: [OSPF] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Yes, this seems better.

-Ekr


-

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Eric,
>
>
>
> I added more text to introduction section . Pls check if it helps improve
> readability.
>
>
>
> “Many OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 deployments run on overlay networks provisioned
>
>    by means of pseudo-wires or L2-circuits.  Prior to devices in the
>
>    underlying network going offline for maintenance, it is useful to
>
>    divert the traffic away from the node before the maintenance is
>
>    actually performed.  Since the nodes in the underlying network are
>
>    not visible to OSPF, the existing stub router mechanism described in
>
>    [RFC6987] cannot be used.  In a service provider's network, there may
>
>    be many CE-to-CE connections that run over a single PE.  It is
>
>    cumbersome to change the metric on every CE-to-CE connection in both
>
>    directions.  This document provides a mechanism to change metric in
>
>    other direction of the link and also use the link as a last-resort-link
> if
>
>    no alternate paths are available.  An application specific to this
>
>    use case is described in detail in Section 7.1.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rgds
>
> Shraddha
>
> *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 19, 2018 12:09 AM
> *To:* Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Introduction section does have a brief description and refers to 7.1 for
> detailed description of the use case. Moving detailed use case description
> to introduction section will make it cluttered.
>
> Also there are other applications apart from 7.1 which also have a brief
> description in the
> Introduction and refer to application section for detailed description.
>
>
>
> Well, it's a comment, so you're free to ignore it, but as a consume of
> this document, I found the current structure hard to follow.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:11 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12:
> (with COMMENT)
>
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
> ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=
> HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=
> NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=
> 3MyT2IBHmmEmtejJI2o73p3zIjhzSmGtffDprR-DdD0&s=TufjwL4DRLGVAWd56qU-
> 6DaDDRfPsgeHp8JmN2XrdTE&e=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__
> datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dospf-2Dlink-
> 2Doverload_&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=
> NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=
> 3MyT2IBHmmEmtejJI2o73p3zIjhzSmGtffDprR-DdD0&s=
> avFGB5zEal090OxCbLLU5A1NvjlOJREQPCY-yP7GTDk&e=
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think this document would be clearer if the example in S 7.1 were in the
> intro. I was scratching my head a bit at the beginning and then got to 7.1
> and it made more sense.
>
>
>