Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDBA129438; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u7AN_NFIRGRI; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A482C129422; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3424; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493376825; x=1494586425; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=gOZkV0kV8e92f86lK9KWsRqnuvEaxy08dWc6Eu/Uzp0=; b=b3OHV9qWuuwvuv3D1zMSDic1yiyvf9pBqYulQdFz9iTJCe5j9mQ9WsUq kZhtm5dB+bqMhp3BtMFyS7kFvse4u3KA9fvKe7BlrpRSRUt8PgExeZpGH kSwsUuqxqRC8j5YpAGALXM7g4MWxZZ4h/NOzirRTlm4lxcqcIHabWmdUO w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AkAgCKHgNZ/5FdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VhgQwHg2GKGJEtIZVsgg8shXgCGoQUPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?VAQEBAQIBIxFFBQsCAQgOBgQCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FihcIDq4CgiaLBQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BC4VUgV4rC4JkhCg3gwYugjEFnVABhxiLc4ICVYR?= =?us-ascii?q?iiiWUJgEfOIEKbxVWAYZddQGGXoENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,387,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="419157108"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2017 10:53:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3SArh0L006036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:53:43 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:53:42 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:53:42 -0400
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
CC: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases.all@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08
Thread-Index: AQHSvStPgbckbBbQm0KLwaNzhINY1KHa5BsA
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:53:42 +0000
Message-ID: <6F302925-DB12-451F-8738-40A2E891E404@cisco.com>
References: <52f7d439-e0b3-e7c5-e0ab-c00569dad1a5@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <52f7d439-e0b3-e7c5-e0ab-c00569dad1a5@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.162.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D88635E6CE26F544823A86C99273A073@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/EyovzRdB29Rg1tQcQuj3TzoxHDU>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:07 -0000

Hi Lou,

thanks for the comment. I integrated them in the new version I’ll submit asap.

Thanks.
s.


> On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
> Directorate, please see
> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08
> Reviewer: Lou Berger
> Review Date: April 24
> Intended Status: Informational
> 
> Summary:
> 
>    I have some minor comments about this document that I think would be
> good, but not necessary, to be resolved before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> This document is concise and clear.  I only have minor/nit level issues
> that could be addressed before publication, but I don't think it
> critical as the document is being published as Informational.
> 
> Major Issues:
> 
> 	No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> - Section 2 mentions reversion, while sections 3 and 4 do not.
>  This leaves reversion requirements open to interpretation.
>  I suggest explicitly stating if reversion is a required
>  option or not in sections 3 and 4 as well.
> 
> - Section 2 mentions 1:1 style path protection.  Past/other work
>  on protection also allowed for / uses 1+1 style protection.  Is
>  1+1 intentionally omitted? If not, I suggest allowing for it.
> 
> Nits:
> 
>>  referred to as local protection techniques or Fast Reroute
>>  techniques.
> 
> References should be provided for each technique.
> 
>>   It is essential that the primary and backup path benefit from an end-
>>   to-end liveness monitoring/verification.  The method and mechanisms
>>   that provide such liveness check are outside the scope of this
>>   document.
> 
> Given the importance of liveness monitoring, I think it would be worth
> mentioned an example of such.
> 
> That's it!
> Lou
>