Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt

[Tomonori Takeda <[e-mail]>]

Thanks!

Tomo

On 2018/12/21 22:46, [e-mail] wrote:
> The -09 has been published and should address your comment.
> 
> Feel free to raise any additional concern.
> 
> Brgds,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomonori Takeda [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 10:13
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
> 
> 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-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
>    Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
>    Review Date: Dec. 17th, 2018
>    IETF LC End Date: Dec. 18th, 2018
>    Intended Status: Informational
> 
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> should be considered prior to publication.
> 
> Comments:
> This document analyzes the impact of SPF delay algorithm and associated
> triggers on IGP micro-loops. This document presents useful information
> on how mixing strategies may lead to longer micro-loops. The document is
> well organized, easy to read.
> 
> Major Issues:
> None
> 
> Minor Issues:
> None
> 
> Nits:
> 1) Section 2 says
> 
>     "That part may be the main part for the first iteration but is not for
>      subsequent IGP events.  In addition, this part is very implementation
>      specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay
>      algorithm may be standardized."
> 
> It would be better to explain what "That part" and "this part" mean.
> I guess the text should look like:
> 
>     "The time to update the FIB may be the main part for the first
>      iteration of IGP event but is not for subsequent IGP events.
>      In addition, the time to update the FIB is very implementation
>      specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay
>      algorithm may be standardized."
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Tomonori Takeda
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 

-- 
Tomonori Takeda
NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
[phone]