Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 13 November 2019 12:56 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 1B6651208C2; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:56:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 f9dGgQEzHxc5; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:56:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB0AB1208C1; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:56:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id t8so2433368qtc.6; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:56:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J3ONao3hH6mg/WF6PXyWPVMPhF7ZasJw78PGkcRP6ew=; b=iridoBTjPHjR4QM/DH3IF1Wt6AiktsMQJYo53Wkj758SpHdrF4jTUXExzb/VBjcaoW i9RMbKX1Aj+q1GY7HFhmURP6CaGJDAV8zgFDuWujcj6AVd3j2XYQzrLt0nObhrBJs1J7 1ns2u59vIgcpiVUTC1yeOcd6ZVDuqlAx0Bk8RqCr3WM25QkszhC39JRR67v4g1H8J3kq EnadzlHZM94z2paV3Vh1Q4wP807OquwCV3aT9m4cKzxjTKeIVQ6o7fU+5jAupHbqQuYR 4IFguZFqmR9GbHg2zC5oExhVHXsU05tvE6mwOSZT9XFi+PsjVtvXlTPcyYUTfAJ5cQZo 7Akw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J3ONao3hH6mg/WF6PXyWPVMPhF7ZasJw78PGkcRP6ew=; b=ZgQd5sw9n2iLfUyGqvU/2ez34f49dzlCU7Fiep1TF21l8Cv2Ti44lgr0pFfB9f985w 3pY/At9pYsODvl8u2fcPsJdlJz67q8bs4SBlzSKnIBby78GyiXgNDTFR/FyK2y5G4I6s 9orEVbRUgi4O9EI8LzMA9hLLCfnNBbbHrx8T9Ga5nsfaawOSDWZ0MV+cUS6nR8bhK1/H 3O1Mkg0ltf2DK2y7A1scZwVf25bRrUrcqiUr1Y+WVXMQXa62m7IvJUnOCnHSNQ72i2F5 L+OVPizSHn8sQEk5j5i+WU9t2+4fnjAyQTUZ94G6bvGaZ41GtzlkMTzL7onOVJ37PmQe ugsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUZKJjiWKL/tF2A8lqz1hfO4dRoa0hAkhoCmf6H6xSOP+KsNjS9 OmDed3pC+4s1G2hXaFchiUHBGnppYf/1D5c35D4JQamYCh0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzt9zR65C8L+ccEdLa09arKHWO4gOmyEJ4gEg5mwMABsQKcSsT2bx7OQCCATa7CPHWpTGkTkzq/lfMepTuZirA=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:36a1:: with SMTP id f30mr2354693qtb.154.1573649790890; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:56:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU1QP-Jk4gSAqvsH7YrTuiAuW6r369QNPxrchH9nNBLK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR19MB3689D3A86109608B0CBBAE01FC770@DM6PR19MB3689.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR19MB3689D3A86109608B0CBBAE01FC770@DM6PR19MB3689.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:56:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0JVxCdzozjPJjwBJw=a66HYdfH9ofW2X8kxO+3FFEXkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Cc: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.all@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c975cb059739e4db"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/qY_N_StI1kHGB_7SI2YTDEUyA0U>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:56:35 -0000
Tarek, You're very welcome! One more small thing I noticed, seeing as you haven't uploaded yet .... :-) The second paragraph in section 3 starts "This document proposes". It's no longer a proposal, it should be "This document defines". Cheers, Andy On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:31 AM Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > Thanks much for you thorough review and comments. I’ve updated the draft > to address those (attached is the diff from latest version). I’ll wait for > the I-D submission tool to reopen and upload it. Inline for further > response. > > > > > > > > > *From: *"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> > *Date: *Monday, November 4, 2019 at 3:14 PM > *To: *"<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org> > *Cc: *"rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, " > draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.all@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.all@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org> > *Subject: *RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt > *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org> > *Resent-To: *<mtaillon@cisco.com>, Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>, Rakesh > Gandhi <rgandhi@cisco.com>, <adeshmukh@juniper.net>, < > mjork@128technology.com>, <vbeeram@juniper.net>, <mach.chen@huawei.com>, < > tsaad.net@gmail.com>, <n.leymann@telekom.de>, <loa@pi.nu>, < > martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, <db3546@att.com>, <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, > Nicolai Leymann <n.leymann@telekom.de> > *Resent-Date: *Monday, November 4, 2019 at 3:14 PM > > > > 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 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir__;!8WoA6RjC81c!Xd-eP3UaAlzqvmEhzY7YofdmKwqzGOjHTZKNtY_tb41RRprKAQL_INl9G5AWmQ$> > > 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-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt > Reviewer: Andy Malis > Review Date: 4 November 2019 > IETF LC End Date: N/A (not yet last-called) > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be considered prior to publication. > > Comments: > > This is a well-written draft that is easy to follow. The draft has > benefitted from previous reviews, including during WG Last Call, when an > issue arose regarding the MTU size of the bypass tunnel resulting from FRR. > The draft is an extension to existing RSVP-TE signaling to reduce the > amount of signaling and increase the scalability for FRR. The draft is > careful to be backwards compatible with nodes that do not support it. > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > No minor issues found. > > Nits: > > Section 1, second paragraph: "large scale RSVP-TE LSPs deployment" -> > "large scale RSVP-TE deployment" > > [TS]: addressed as proposed. > > > Section 2.1: The key words paragraph is out of date. The current wording > is: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > RFC 8174 should also be added as a normative reference. > > [TS]: thanks, this has been updated now. > > > Section 3.1.2: > > "The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents > of the B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID changes; for example, > when PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment." -> > "The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents > of the B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID changes (e.g,, > when the PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment)." > > [TS]: addressed as proposed. > > > Section 4: The title of this section may be better as "Backwards > Compatibility" rather than just "Compatibility". > > [TS]: addressed as proposed. > > > > > Section 5: "message, a slightly" -> "message, slightly" > > [TS]: addressed as proposed. > > > Section 6: This section includes the URL for an IANA registry. These may > change over time as IANA reorganizes their registries, and thus just > referencing the appropriate registry and sub-registry by name is sufficient. > > [TS]: removed url and kept the reference by name. > > > This section also contains a reference to the IANA "Resource Reservation > Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry, but that registry isn't referenced > elsewhere in the text and should be removed from this section. > > [TS]: removed as not needed. > > > > Regards, > > Tarek > > > > Regards, > Andy > > > > >
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summ… Tarek Saad
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-summ… Andrew G. Malis