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

<> Fri, 21 December 2018 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F66A123FFD; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:46:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gCYtpP-Xn_Xx; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:46:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24C81276D0; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:46:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43Lqfk5Vd0z2yfb; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:46:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.33]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43Lqfk4DKTzCqmq; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:46:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d5fd:9c7d:2ee3:39d9%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:46:38 +0100
To: Tomonori Takeda <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUlejVmGEd1nqTvESMbJVzU0COvKWJO0IA
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:46:38 +0000
Message-ID: <12528_1545399998_5C1CEEBE_12528_299_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B787B85@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:46:43 -0000

The -09 has been published and should address your comment.

Feel free to raise any additional concern.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tomonori Takeda [] 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 10:13
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt


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 

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

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication.

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:

Minor Issues:

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."

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.