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

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

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