IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <chrisbowers.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 E0CD712EB4B; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:49:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 EYuv_QFjvCo5; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:49:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x234.google.com (mail-yb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::234]) (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 3285F12EB35; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:49:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id c66so7141274ybf.0; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:49:45 -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=3U1nszB6lnq+h1syz/7GT9C/IDNgCAuPYxlONtlQp8M=; b=oLXxhSzL0CyWvloSKdYkHPt0PEJjX5EDxFJqrqzONHjSjuDdYv2IthQiBA6YnxO217 FGU0AsiX2vsCdFDQWKjgLtRf1FG9ngN7G7k2p+p08COj1/ju+OGbgYo+WYwd9bLr5g1c BIaJn7UNrNss6HvPTkIj7YMwzzGBs1I96wrtgP4y7Eb9y0YcWW4sG6aN3D0LvchyJimy pDAYDx9ATpaaqx8+Ypr0XE+a5Iqz0LL+01E4fxOupQNsuEPoBLNpZqPOgXlJy3Evw0tN DIOriV591TG/JGrfzHvYBGvm9T77A7esr5VNl9dU4iJizEDo33heMv2ZAShd0aojrdCd N5cA==
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=3U1nszB6lnq+h1syz/7GT9C/IDNgCAuPYxlONtlQp8M=; b=ifZd9LzFpObwVQGO7/zFkrkhNCDx+yAZO3aOL2z/yLgEbpy3qxK4eVb7Zc4buWZj4F KOXrzEKNy+tIV6BSPhmxPJv9CKe21tCLSlBhUxLvVc1+tQD2ysKLIqyzRNukQC0Knc70 4AdFfnA8KJmxQZNk11DTGvtxYjufJ1J8uSBvblfpcyaVIHopHCVYP3OZ01AuT9DQ0og5 Cd1X2TDjPLnp54mxr18oI6q7HyM1vWyfTJFUc9dRHsGl4OgcaCokuN+5NgE0pms4MuZ4 xRjzjomnqHtgWuNO35ylYNPDm4FALFHL2tNW921tU//6dMDJh1thavY3zJfkEHAEcZ31 ihXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteFUlwvf6DuYdOnwXbUcEmW65oxVl1Tt4kyjVJANvzDut93sfzh AUHvnG9lQt/sZvBeFZSnSCNmd27eg/+dk4x7Lfs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouDfeCYEYDPl+Y6wwWxX+fzorSm+rg7SAxYNspCxy/V7O/d0ldVBzM/BuMjHKOftPLERougbJl++8AMA3QbCaM=
X-Received: by 10.37.129.195 with SMTP id n3mr12765156ybm.144.1516139384382; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:49:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.177.27 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:49:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413527B1C@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAHzoHbvqNfm9Bk=qu+L5BT8uWOyQK2h3AhzYebSTZtQMV4csdw@mail.gmail.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413527B1C@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:49:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHzoHbs3NBvZQjM6A7rF5P2JmAdcWZQjFf_cvNiUi_vrkUxKJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/AhPwIT5L3BZb00kfh3JZE5PdcYA>
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:47 -0000

Uma,

Could you propose some specific text to add to the document to address
your comment?

Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> wrote:
> Support and have a following comment and want to see this addressed.
>
>
>
> Section 2:
>
>
>
>  I saw SPF computation time has been discussed, while it is true this is
> relatively a smaller issue when compared to mismatch in SPF delay with
> different trigger algos across various vendors; it depends on the size of
> the network + mix of legacy and new nodes.
>
>  Any ways, my comment:
>
>   I would like to see add one more bullet point with regard to SPF
> computation order impact on the micro loops  for a trigger i.e., a trigger
> which is common to multiple levels/areas, multiple topologies and multiple
> SPF-algorithms (in extreme case).
>
>  There is no specified order today and its implementation dependent and IMO
> this too would be a significant contributor (of course, not asking to
> specify the order here) and visible once the SPF delay/trigger-algo issue is
> fixed across. So this is worth being listed here.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
>
>
> From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:19 AM
> To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
>
>
>
> RTGWG,
>
> This email starts the two week WG last call for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement/
>
>
> Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this
>
> informational document, along with the reasoning behind that support or
>
> opposition.
>
>
>
> IPR:
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
>
> this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
>
> response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
>
> not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from
>
> each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
>
>
>
> This last call will end on Thursday, December 21st.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris and Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email