progressing & AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 21 December 2016 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 3AA021297EC; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 gn-mZjwj_4z9; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 A0AF91296BD; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g23so153167965wme.1; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:31:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wom52uFAekF4tk9eyrR/Nn5/ImiT5NBAoU/lGezuS0Q=; b=Daa6Ny9j8NIWVF9Il+AHxGlcJNXbF/otdOpTwRU+iCxInJsRiL3s5KgQr8Rge0oE46 lXPyaTiJ7PQ3qt4v+F2fWhaLlGbtdAN+zwZVu1J7AxiUIUplgrv/qiYEgJT9Hg5HNcy9 R1yLbdiPmI2y72OkVuqEqIouY/doCCcHI742FcQuoHDIuLBLGplbqSmoutTiHfo6r93a qLwPLCYxGIUmiZ/DQE2Z87+A9oDJ4t/LSim3VuyOLXH0ZkoHh7lcsdWWk0fBUmBhxwgT 0WK/Trji9JhKIFKHGhGGk6jv7coqw3ZZ5AHFIZT2KZFmpNiAf1kNOEaEWCZp6Rouz4HI 0zqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wom52uFAekF4tk9eyrR/Nn5/ImiT5NBAoU/lGezuS0Q=; b=ZuAaV/Q+Fg959lketfN8gklO3CKElLYQu1b/Th65YQmGV0ct+CJOV+iWK86BTjCVuu CYeacArVN3QKZ8GU+ystt+Gi9J0EXLRxmQU+K6KaomCIot9Oelka3X49vWoYCNSz0qbd qFFU0hOFgcW8JV1sze5lAaZWObaA1zdo3kdj2XatTe7Y9QwdXLdFbkCt9Qi5KroSzEE8 jPpuvnBcGDlixQPSJ6DeirQZJHU+A7mbDVEFJLhzNpRg3MfupgTvjXodAnCtIf8Qf7Tb KN71VWcFv47gAvyLdLT4s43ygv7ZiA31NUMxq32ppO8YmHFzUsG1EeOZ0NrYLbfmKr8Z xePg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ2FiOl8WQyGZnUyXsfW5C5RzjI1ZyCoN78y29G3+YQEweQkpKhKpSZD9VrRK8BVPDNK3BdgSS7/kLqJA==
X-Received: by 10.28.131.72 with SMTP id f69mr5467606wmd.135.1482337886925; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:31:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.145.41 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:31:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:31:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdknV6oK-2P7VUeYyD1CSXLT8XpBDoj4W0aSHHTbCuoqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: progressing & AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection@ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11443c3a2ff7fb05442daf44"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/H23V9SbNgzVHYOuKA2YWq7amE8Y>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:31:33 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08.  First, I would like to thank the
authors - Pushpasis, Shraddha, Chris, Hannes, and Stephane - for their work
on this well-written document.

I do not have any substantial comments from my review, so I am happy to
request an IETF Last Call on this and have scheduled it for the Jan 19 IESG
telechat.

My one comment is that it would be useful to have a slightly larger clear
example where the primary path has multiple ECMP next-hop nodes.  This can
be a point of complexity and is not really described clearly as such.

Thanks,
Alia