Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09: (with COMMENT)
"Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 22 June 2015 19:29 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCB41ACE1C; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5] autolearn=ham
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 CZjdqj5nBUxE; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0DE1A88D2; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150622192923.17836.36341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:29:23 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Ee4g2LBND7ti7cF24EPiPhQi5VM>
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:29:25 -0000
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09: 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-lfa-manageability/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I only have a few editorial things to add: -- Section 4 -- Implementers SHOULD document their LFA selection algorithms (default and tuning options) in order to leave possibility for 3rd party modules to model these policy-LFA expressions. I'm not going to whine about this *too* much, but I don't see this as an appropriate use of 2119 key words. I'd be happier if it were changed to not be a 2119 word. That said, there's no need for discussion. Do as you think best. -- Section 6.2 -- 3. If the defined policy does not permit to determine a unique best LFA, The wording here is really awkward English. The verb "permit" needs a direct object here, as in "does not permit <someone> to determine <something>." You can't just omit the <someone>. The easiest fix is to change "to determine" to "the determination of". (I would also use "allow" rather than "permit", but that's just a personal wording preference.) -- Section 6.2.4.1 -- When SRLG protection is computed, and implementation SHOULD permit to Same problem here as in 6.2, above, but because of the list the fix isn't as easy. First, "and" should be "an". Second, the fix should probably be like this: NEW When SRLG protection is computed, an implementation SHOULD permit the following: o Exclusion of alternates violating SRLG. o Maintenance of a preference system between alternates based on SRLG violations. [...etc...] END In the first sub-bullet, "Preference based on number of violation," both instances of "violation" should be "violations". -- Section 7.3 -- o MUST be able to display, for every prefixes, the primary next hop as well as the alternate next hop information. "prefixes" should be "prefix". -- Section 7.4 -- When you say "provide an alert system" here, I think you mean "provide an alert", or, perhaps better, "trigger an alert" or "generate an alert". Presumably, in order to do that, an alert system has to be available. But the point here is that you saying when specific alerts should be triggered/generated.