IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: progressing & AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 22 December 2016 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A1C129680; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:06:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 GKmBuDRi-Tre; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 48D6012945F; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id a10so109511638ywa.3; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:06:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9Xz+dyP09wiP/wDmtrerGp55pRh9mLoCOuxf1QG6p5k=; b=b0kaewfXKdFybbK/X9nCp9QHqlgGvEcd43vclUBYS4jEX5zhPQQA7FIzk7yhIUajCR hlXivParfX1dMp1kSqx0ZwHVaWlsK1W1NomjgHttfu6JquvmBq88h4B1E9pTIwOSY2mm U5/Xa81L/XQnvS4fdDZsABvZT6vAxYolRM8DRcXoCfPwy3hz05gLyQ87VO/NiN8NGivs 5ZKqjarngM3ynpgqvNf7dhSrRqEr8j5Lp9SC07Z1Azxr1vSDv4bXgevZeORvbO3OOwgF fvtb5wEbmjNueGguCZ4U5FkQXeJNTMl0QHgnY/z5KJiuOvgx8hmiZyrPEyTTik1T++pN UGtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9Xz+dyP09wiP/wDmtrerGp55pRh9mLoCOuxf1QG6p5k=; b=eveGLOG+Vmyt+3OPAFCvTsituBGwtlUyZtfgIlv66B8T65e7o9Xyi9azz+1wXrjlVM CnARqP+4lEJcJaYJn1FE+k+tV211LnlwyW/F6aHHFcqr/wHDAXpyflqY7dQvZRCFEHPX +cTlnL/Rdu+f1vlMkG+Hf+jvlbJjY9cdJefP+D9p5FwhJnfrSuZ+vj5hOQlG8G0VVVJQ p5rO0BUrmVn305PU3JQfZNQtkf0m0O9H1wM4Gcx01hlbtkmWSeOeKCKRPLuYnEtWUrkH Ya7I7M5uzvuGbIbJ6is+1pphWxVJkQu3fN1IrYEDweWrCymBOhTD6IoNX36ZhBMn1WMf y6mQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIOD03hHrw9udC0YXi2r7qMV4VwbAxozHyh0V227vR1vwHzTkpyDT3hZkCYX+Lo6RtRaXBeV0P9T8gjBA==
X-Received: by 10.129.93.87 with SMTP id r84mr6803162ywb.15.1482379578355; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:06:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.216.82 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:06:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdknV6oK-2P7VUeYyD1CSXLT8XpBDoj4W0aSHHTbCuoqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdknV6oK-2P7VUeYyD1CSXLT8XpBDoj4W0aSHHTbCuoqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:36:17 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwkjuhrFF5VWdKhwuvBjLuvGdX-5PN1MVYEM3LqFLB2LdNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: progressing & AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114d6fb430b693054437645e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/2Q0T_Yt3dRFrql3brMccBVEdeZg>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection@ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:06:20 -0000

Hi Alia,

Many many thanks for the comments.

Regarding your comment on an example with multiple ecmp primary next-hop
nodes, is it okay if we include it as a separate section? I do have an
example in mind, but am not sure including it directly in the problem
statement will complicate it for the readers to understand it, or not.

I will wait for your suggestion on the above. :)

Thanks and regards,
-Pushpasis

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

> As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08.
> First, I would like to thank the authors - Pushpasis, Shraddha, Chris,
> Hannes, and Stephane - for their work on this well-written document.
>
> I do not have any substantial comments from my review, so I am happy to
> request an IETF Last Call on this and have scheduled it for the Jan 19 IESG
> telechat.
>
> My one comment is that it would be useful to have a slightly larger clear
> example where the primary path has multiple ECMP next-hop nodes.  This can
> be a point of complexity and is not really described clearly as such.
>
> Thanks,
> Alia
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email