Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 19 June 2015 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2221B29E0 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.998 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, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 4uwX78jYht25 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) (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 94AFD1B2A3D for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbkn5 with SMTP id kn5so53357774obb.0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DWrKyFyNTnwm8j+3giRToDUip2zJmWMKtQuWEsfcFpU=; b=Sg7m2kyGBtX4k0BQXxJjzgN/OWLGsDTdvQN109ZjOYfbN1LvZYlFYR3q4CyD7h0k+S iXk7jOsA1pcXyNvcctkl8R6bS56SoIa7X+CCNYB2X6/aZ561K7JV1eOiIC7HPc2qSO3u 5Pz50u+4zACivgFWmbh/3OgBC2t/jsA8h2aOFdwnY0OV1Nfg+Z9qi3LYmLjzeoXnwDtR opmeo9gomrMYPzBeHM00MmMCfhlpL9vhK0UcbGqzYtRWX15o10hA4H7ihQEOdu5g0W9n JJcKzlbAKLMRbs6nj3ByB5W86/Q7Nrt+yo9xgcmXIi3hQJyjgo/TJHVGXTXGZ2b7/uRj lADQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.186.106 with SMTP id fj10mr14874006obc.54.1434747352015; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.165.145 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20707_1434726546_55843092_20707_1924_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166776F6@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CAG4d1rd1+v5PQLGquh6ufgRCx3c5iRZodwDsmbjuT_0j6-j0dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1re0++G9rfcoKfa=Uq4O_JZGKRY7dJaVKH7vkLxvxed0Qg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcLc+r268beuL+4iHTLzS=L3x1wX20+eBsW-ZocVwxZEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rfcRR0JUwfq-KbKqFAyZ7g5MBMHHZdp4O-Sh2u9PD6ygA@mail.gmail.com> <13533_1434113718_557AD6B6_13533_1650_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9216674F12@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAG4d1rdOH5FpmYB5ZMZcQfTNqPHvyeUC1Xr9VJhqy6APcXpu_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcb2r5a5iT9FzQOM0VXr6nN_D-f5q_QS2XA0gvJgV4wjg@mail.gmail.com> <20707_1434726546_55843092_20707_1924_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166776F6@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:55:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfmUUrQr5pUiG3Gr=180sU5Cns7Bpu5wY32rPDDYpmVyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0149bbb0426b9d0518e526a9"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/-5Ukfe9tIJ5fzGozGLJIlzMY_2k>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability@tools.ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:55:58 -0000
RTGWG & Stephane, Thank you very much for the thorough and clear addressing of my technical concerns. I would strongly urge others in the working group to read through the updated draft. The changes are clarifications of the appropriate behavior - but I am interested in being certain that he updates are seen by the working group. PLEASE send any comments or concerns or that it looks good to you in the next week. I may hold the draft in AD Follow-up for a few days (not past the end of June) if I don't see that the WG has seen these changes. Basically, I don't think that they are technical changes such that it's necessary to go back through the last call process - but they are significantly more than merely editorial, so I would be more comfortable with others doing a quick review also. Thanks, Alia On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:09 AM, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > I just posted the version 9. For the moment, I kept the six (co-)authors. > As I explained, everyone did more than just contributing and there was a > strong involvement on draft text and specification, so it would be > wonderful if you can agree to keep all of them. > > > > Hope the modified text will fit your comments. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephane > > ------------------ > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Stephane Litkowski and posted to the > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability > > Revision: 09 > > Title: Operational management of Loop Free Alternates > > Document date: 2015-06-19 > > Group: rtgwg > > Pages: 28 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09 > > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09 > > > > Abstract: > > Loop Free Alternates (LFA), as defined in RFC 5286 is an IP Fast > > ReRoute (IP FRR) mechanism enabling traffic protection for IP traffic > > (and MPLS LDP traffic by extension). Following first deployment > > experiences, this document provides operational feedback on LFA, > > highlights some limitations, and proposes a set of refinements to > > address those limitations. It also proposes required management > > specifications. > > > > This proposal is also applicable to remote LFA solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2015 20:11 > *To:* LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF > *Cc:* rtgwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability@tools.ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability > > > > Just a quick reminder - but an updated draft is needed by tomorrow to > address these issues. > > Otherwise, I will have to remove the draft from the telechat on June 25 > and postpone it until June 9, > > assuming the draft is updated next week. > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Stephane, > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote: > > Hi Alia, > > > > Many thanks for your review, I will address them shortly and publish a new > version. > > Some comments inline. > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Stephane > > > > *From:* rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas > *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 23:44 > *To:* rtgwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability@tools.ietf.org > *Subject:* AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability > > > > As is customary, I have done my AD Review of this draft. Thank you for a > clearly written and well thought out draft. > > I do have some minor concerns, as below, but I am also letting this draft > move to IETF Last Call while they are addressed. I will need an updated > draft by June 18, so the draft can go on the IESG telechat on June 25. > > Minor comments: > > 0) This draft has 6 authors. Please prune down to 5 or assign an > editor or two. > > [SLI] Everyone listed worked hardly on the text as well as on > specifications, I will put myself as editor to keep everyone J. > > We can talk about this. Having 6 authors/editors is an exception that I > would have to approve. > > 1) In section 6.2.1, it says " When selecting the best alternate, the > selection algorithm MUST > consider all available alternates (connected or tunnel). Especially, > computation of PQ set ([I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]) SHOULD be > performed before best alternate selection." > > Instead of "Especially" with a SHOULD - which implies that Remote > LFA should always be run, could you change it to: "For example with Remote > LFA, computation of PQ set ...."? I think the manageability concerns in > this document are useful regardless of the fast-reroute technology and this > is only a good example of an implementation ordering that is important. > > [SLI] Fixed. > > 2) In 6.2.4.1: " attributes from PLR to alternate path are retrieved > from the > interface connected to the alternate." > > There can be multiple interfaces. The correct behavior (union or > evaluate once per different interface) should be clearly described. The > similar issue exists for the alternate path and in 6.2.4.2, but there may > be more or less freedom about controlling which path is taken. > > [SLI] I need to discuss with my co authors on that. > > Yes, I think this one is a non-trivial. It's made more amusing by the > probability of multiple paths taken at downstream hops. I can see being > conservative there but able to pick for the first hop. > > > > 3) In Sec 6.2.6, "Maintain a preference system between alternates based > on number of > > SRLG violations : more violations = less preference." The way that > I've seen SRLGs used as a soft restriction is by giving each SRLG a value. > Then one can prefer the lower sum. This allows different consideration and > valuation of the SRLGs. Of course, this can fall back to each SRLG has a > value of 1. Could you please loosen the assumption here about equally > valuing the SRLGs? I'd prefer to see both alternatives allowed - but that > is <no-hat>technical opinion</no-hat> whereas loosening the assumption is > about not accidentally forcing more limited behavior and removing the > ability to implement more sophisticated mechanisms. > > [SLI] Right, here is a new text proposal which is more open: > > “ > > When SRLG protection is computed, and implementation SHOULD permit to : > > <list style="symbols"> > > <t>Exclude alternates > violating SRLG.</t> > > <t>Maintain a preference > system between alternates based on SRLG violations. How the preference > system is implemented is out of scope of this document but here are few > examples : > > <list style="symbols"> > > <t>Preference based on > number of violation. In this case : the more violation = the less > preferred.</t> > > <t>Preference based on > violation cost. In this case, each SRLG violation has an associated cost. > The lower violation cost sum is preferred.</t> > > </list>” > > Looks good. > > The path considerations mentioned in (2) still apply. > > 4) In Sec 6.2.7, you might be interested in the link/node-attribute > drafts that are being finished. > > [SLI] Could you give me the pointers of drafts you are thinking about ? > > > > You have the ISIS one for node admin tags. I was also thinking of > draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-02 > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag/> > > and draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/>. For > ISIS, it looks like the similar draft > > only provides for prefix attributes and not link ones. > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > 5) In Sec 6.2.8: "The bandwidth criteria of the policy framework SHOULD > work in two > ways" Please expand to "at least two ways" - there are other > strategies as well that might be reasonable and no standardization reason > to rule them out. > > [SLI] Agree, fixed > > Nits: > a) Introduction needs to be the first section. Terminology can follow. > > [SLI] Fixed > > b) Remote LFA reference needs updating to RFC 7490. I think, given > some of the details in this draft, that it should be a normative reference. > > [SLI] Fixed. > > > > Thanks for the good work, > Alia > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > 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. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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. > >
- AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability Alia Atlas
- RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageabili… stephane.litkowski
- Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageabili… Alia Atlas
- Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageabili… Alia Atlas
- RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageabili… stephane.litkowski
- Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageabili… Alia Atlas