Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 12 October 2017 13:37 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 016A71320D8 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 F4sA1Cm1FcbD for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x232.google.com (mail-qt0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (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 28AF01321A4 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k31so13615116qta.6 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ne9210Jn+tQOZlNpH5nuwN5BO337QE1Qd8S9doRcOrw=; b=cqugtaqQg1cMbHpX7eNX83Di88zBUOh/Gmz0YwFFrO9aSeMpg3aSPbNuiqPQtqL54I zVdYNvJTnW1WplaCIyXtwcH8vpn1/9T3b7Z3Xbo0r4qE3tXx7WJ1eU/XOrXoI5pBqNVj 8LhTjOVpA1QhlcjaLpzWYbF0pKB2x0vpwnn6qocUxw040p8Iuix1gyWfqfWfKqSPEP9X YGY1YKDV5oVviL7skgp/AX0Q9XCGA3OEwbZlyHhEegK84ql29ZDzrgdSOQvTDOGS9XDj xDceOY6c854VwzJj47BfQVCj+xtTSlizO7IqMxnlLJ4wXLDZt4XI8p7zWBPOxIQEYt7w JK6g==
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=ne9210Jn+tQOZlNpH5nuwN5BO337QE1Qd8S9doRcOrw=; b=LyoL0eU810z/0QvZm0Jqn0NdkLEoo6U9igQVndXbR3fOfcIq4kElYawSbykOe0iIqs /PVo/LDRcHm74w7ii/svzYk5dWTfwLKops5Rzt046VC5xaj0sCLdJ+2ttpNNYYZLzjHL KuG8ARylwqyHiQxK8TX4N9/VE55reJGi6/2dHn7K/Ivsxa1Im5Kr10tkw5U06x0URMJh 9/nVgzwg/UT9uznFcSkhiqs0IwLPMWbeNzAg/wv+trHH6FhFXrCH/iog3IGM2RmtfykN EwLc0m11fJHsXZYKIHLeihFbdoZP3/7qtkJvfSTZHvxvyHYr3wxfWVR5ZF+ppZq9Qh4X TdoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUEBP/o5jwWI89/kSSjXt8XO1bg9O+qZsKiK1of9cM4I3h6EbXT +1EKmHKTTf8LdMjRPWxIHRGl4ZvLYUea2SPa4TnCDg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAVYE1K7oI2mAMI0gzoqU+ZCP5193O8xLpRhWc7R/IFiwixiUpNPSgVD4b8HIJshKtOZAyerw4DoGdKuI9k4Us=
X-Received: by 10.37.1.7 with SMTP id 7mr1729749ybb.419.1507815440272; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.75.194 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1906_1507791869_59DF13FD_1906_251_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA86DCE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <150775815156.24759.2006673499487621983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1906_1507791869_59DF13FD_1906_251_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA86DCE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:36:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPfGmSee9hN-CEdNZTewxtaGJQ=CRBhbfyc+VrqFVdQeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com" <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cfcacb456ab055b59a3ea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/9O6WInGPTIRW-AkKKwDcefZldgw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Oct 2017 13:37:26 -0000
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:04 AM, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for your review, I will take care of your comments. > > " Line 136 > When S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and > B if S updates its forwarding entry to D before B. > Something seems to have gone badly wrong with this paragraph. Are these > lines supposed to be in the previous paragraph." > > [SLI] This is the postamble of the figure and not really a paragraph. > It's also not really readable in the context of that paragraph. " Figure 7 > Is this the same as the previous figure with T running CEAB? > " > > [SLI] What figure are you talking about when saying "the previous" ? > I think there is a copy/paste issue. The tunnel T is not used here. > Hmm...I seem to have reviewed -06. > > > Brgds, > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 23:43 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; > chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com; rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: > (with COMMENT) > > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: 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-uloop-delay/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Line 115 > Consider the case in Figure 1 where S does not have an LFA to protect > its traffic to D. That means that all non-D neighbors of S on the You > need to define LFA. > > Line 118 > topology will send to S any traffic destined to D if a neighbor did > not, then that neighbor would be loop-free. Regardless of the > advanced fast-reroute (FRR) technique used, when S converges to the > This is not a grammatical sentence. > > Line 132 > S ------ B > 1 > Figure 1 > What do the numbers in this box mean? I assume they are route metrics, but > you need to say so. > > Line 136 > When S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and > B if S updates its forwarding entry to D before B. > Something seems to have gone badly wrong with this paragraph. Are these > lines supposed to be in the previous paragraph. > > Line 326 > unstable. As an example, [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo] defines a > standard SPF delay algorithm. > You need to define SPF here. > > Line 338 > 1. The Up/Down event is notified to the IGP. > Usually, one would say that the IGP is notified of... > > Line 552 > S > > Figure 7 > Is this the same as the previous figure with T running CEAB? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > _____________________________________________________________ > > 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. > >
- Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-… Eric Rescorla
- RE: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rt… stephane.litkowski
- Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rt… Eric Rescorla