Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit,

Many many thanks for your review comments. Please find answers inline...

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: Discuss
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This document mentions manageability in his title. Hence my special
> focus.
> I'm with Eric Vyncke here. His OPS DIR review is:
>
> Not being an expert in LFA, the review focus was only on operation.
> And, due to the density and specialization of the I-D, I would like to
> ask the authors whether they read RFC 5706 about 'ops and mgmt
> guidelines', i.e., to check whether this I-D considered migration from an
> existing LFA to the new one, interoperations with previous LFA and how
> correct operations can be verified.
> As the core topic is about loop-free alternates, we can assume that fault
> management and operations are at the core of this I-D. But, I encourage
> the authors to quickly review their document with RFC 5706 in mind.
>
> After reading the document (and with basic knowledge of RLFA), I'm unable
> to tell at this point if RFC 7916 is still valid for this new
> functionality, if it needs to be updated, or even if
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-
> protection-10#section-3
> is complete in light of RFC 5706. I'll be watching the discussion with
> interest.
>
> [Pushpasis]
I have provided an elaborate explanation in reply to OPS DIR review
comments from Eric. Request you to please refer to that.. :) And please let
us know if we are missing anything specific here..


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -  The resulting Remote-LFA
>    alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-nodes) may not
> provide
>    node-protection for all destinations covered by the same, in case of
>    failure of the primary nexthop node.
>
> Covered by the same?
>
[Pushpasis] The reference here is to the PQ-node computed using RFC7490
specification which only gaurantees protection against failure of first-hop
link and not against failure of first-hop node(or router)..
I will try to change the text to clarify this..

>
> - There are also some nits and typos such as " uitilized" in the
> abstract.
>
[Pushpasis] I will take care of this in a next version shortly.

Thanks once again and Regards,
-Pushpasis