Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

- Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the
> approach proposed, this
>    document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the
>    entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit
>    on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset."
>    Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem
> inaccurate.
>
[Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then?

Actually, I don't see the term 'recommends' anywhere in the current
version. So now I am not sure what was the comment about :( Request you to
clarify this a bit, so that I can take the right resolution..

Thanks and regards,
-Pushpasis

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Mirja,
>
> Thanks a lot for the comments. And sorry for not being able to reply
> earlier. Please find some comments  inline.
>
> Thanks
> -Pushpasis
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Overall comment: This reads rather like an informational rfc; however
>> given that rfc7490 is standards track, I guess that's fine.
>>
>> More specific comments:
>> - More abbreviations could be spelled out to make it easier to read.
>>
> [Pushpasis] I will try to add as many as I can in the next version :)
>
>> - Not sure what section 3 tells me; but I'm also not an expert.
>>
> [Pushpasis] Section 3 is about a using the same solution proposed to find
> a node-protected R-LFA path by running a forward-SPF on the PQ node(s) to
> select parameters of the same paths discovered, so that the computing
> router on discovering multiple R-LFA backup paths to a single destination
> can run some backup-path-selection policies on the same path parameters
> collected (while doing computing F-SPF) to select one or more best suited
> R-LFA backup paths for the destination. Hope it explains :) You may also
> want to refer to RFC7916 for more explanation.
>
> - Also section 3: "As already specified in Section 2.3.4 to limit the
>> computational
>>    overhead of the proposed approach, forward SPF computations MUST be
>>    run on a selected subset from the entire set of PQ-nodes computed in
>>    the network, with a finite limit on the number of PQ-nodes in the
>>    subset."
>>    I guess you don't need the upper case MUST here.
>>
> [Pushpasis] Actually this was suggested to be exactly a MUST in WG
> discussions on the WG mail
>
>> - Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the
>> approach proposed, this
>>    document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the
>>    entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit
>>    on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset."
>>    Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem
>> inaccurate.
>>
> [Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then?
>
>> - And also section 2.3.4: Could you maybe suggest or discuss an
>> appropriate default value?
>>
> [Pushpasis] I have myself implemented it for Juniper and the default value
> as 16. I can specify the same as a suggested default. But I am not sure it
> will be raise any concern in the WG or not. If you suggest, I can go ahead
> and put this in the next version.
>
> Thanks once again
> -Pushpasis
>
>