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

Looks reasonable.

Thanks for the proposal, I will take care of the doc update.

-----Original Message-----
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 02:32
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: rtgwg-chairs; RTGWG
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Hi Chris and Co-authors,

Something to this spirit before the last bullet point in Section 2.

   o   SPF computation order:  A SPF trigger can be common to  multiple IGP areas or levels (e.g., IS-IS Level1/Level2) or 
        for multiple address families with multi-topologies. There is no specified order for SPF computation today and 
        it is implementation dependent. In such scenarios, if the order of SPF computation done
        in A and B for each area/level/topology/SPF-algorithm is different, there is a 
        possibility for a micro-loop to appear.  

BR,
--
Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bowers [mailto:chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:49 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

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-stateme
> nt/
>
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.