Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

All,

thanks for the update, I'm pushing this forward.
Note that the quote for 8124 is not exactly that one but this can be 
handled at a later stage.

-m

Le 2018-09-19 à 10:50, Shraddha Hegde a écrit :
> Martin,
> 
> I have fixed the typos and also added more description to clarify a few items.
> 
> Pls see details
> 
> Section 4.2 (and subsections) is (are) a bit difficult to
> read/understand because of the typos but also because of the way it's
> written.
> 
> Section 4.2.1.
> Do you mean ECMP FRR rather than simply ECMP (as section 4.2.3. seems to
> suggest)?
> If so, please take this into account while addressing typos listed below.
> [Pushpasis] 4.2.1 is for ECMP. ECMPs do not count as alternates. These rules cover all scenarios but related to alternates only.
> But, I will let Shraddha confirm that..
> <shraddha> Fixed the text to read "ECMP FRR"
> 
> Sections 4.2.2., 4.2.3., and 4.2.5, seem to be linked to 4.2.1..
> Wouldn't it be better to switch 4.2.4. and 4.2.5.? Alternatively can't
> these three sections in fact be subsections of 4.2.1 ?
> [Pushpasis] Shraddha can you take look and let us know if that is okay.
> <shraddha> Thanks for the suggestion. Chaged the paraphasing sections to subsections of 4.2.1
> 
> Although Sections 4.2.2., 4.2.3., and 4.2.5 seem to paraphrase 4.2.1., I
> read one sentence which does not appear in the pseudo algorithm:
>      If there are two ASBRs with different type2 cost, the higher cost
>      ASBR is pruned.
> So I am not sure to understand when this condition/action comes into
> play. Could you clarify?
> [Pushpasis] Again will let Shraddha comment on it.
> <Shraddha> Added more description to "type 1 type 2 cost" section.
> Pls check if it looks better.
> 
> Section 4.2.4
> It is not clear which inequalities will apply in that case.
> <Shraddha> Added statement to clarify the inequalities to be used.
> 
> In the same way as above, Section 4.2.5 seems to say a more than Step 5
> of the pseudo algorithm. Could you clarify when the extra conditions it
> describes come into play? Or said differently, shouldn't step 5 be
> reworked to be more complete? If you do so, please rework that step
> incorporating the types of changes/rephrasing I have suggested for the
> other steps (see typos below).
> <Shraddha> Updated step 5. pls check.
> 
> 
>      1a. if primary ASBR and alternate ASBR are intra area
>          non-backbone path go to step 2.
> do you mean "belong to" rather than "are"?
> <shraddha>if primary ASBR and alternate ASBR are intra area
>                    and belong to non-backbone go to step 2.
> 
>     2. If cost type (type1/type2) advertised by alternate
>        ASBR same as primary
> Do you mean:
>     2. Compare cost types (type1/type2) advertised by alternate ASBR and
>        by the primary ASBR
> [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take  a look.
> <shraddha> Fixed
> 
> 
>     3. If cost type is type1
>               3a. If cost is same, program ECMP and return.
>               3b. else go to step 5.
> Do you mean:
>     3. If cost types are type1, compare costs advertised by alternate ASBR
>        and by the primary ASBR
>               3a. If costs are the same then program ECMP and return.
>               3b. else go to step 5.
> [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take  a look.
> <Shraddha> Fixed
> 
> 
>     4  If cost type is type 2
>               4a. If cost is different, skip alternate ASBR and
>                       consider next ASBR.
>               4b. If type2 cost is same, proceed to step 4c to compare
>                       compare type 1 cost.
>               4c. If type1 cost is also same program ECMP and return.
>               4d. If type 1 cost is different go to step 5.
> Do you mean:
>     4  If cost types are type2, compare costs advertised by alternate ASBR
>        and by the primary ASBR
>               4a. If costs are different, skip alternate ASBR and
>                       consider next ASBR.
>               4b. If cost are the same, proceed to step 4c to compare
>                       compare type1 costs.
>               4c. If type1 costs are also same program ECMP and return.
>               4d. If type1 costs are different go to step 5.
> [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take  a look.
> <shraddha> Fixed
> 
>      While selecting alternate ASBR for loop evaluation for LFA, these
>      rules should be applied and ensured that the alternate neighbor does
>      not loop the traffic back.
> I'm not sure about the meaning of the latter part of that sentence ("and
> ensured ...")
> [Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take  a look. I think it means.. "... these rules should be applied and to ensure that the alternate neighbor does not loop ..."
> <shraddha> fixed the text
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted -07 version.Pls take a look and let me know if you have further comments.
> 
> Rgds
> Shraddha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:02 PM
> To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>; Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]>; Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>; RTGWG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06
> 
> Martin,
> 
> Apologise missing the e-mail from Pushpasis.
> I'll look at the comments and update the draft in a day or two.
> 
> Rgds
> Shraddha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:25 PM
> To: Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]>; Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>; RTGWG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I am extremely sorry. I forgot to follow up with co-authors on this. Buried with day job. I will try to close it with co-authors at the earliest possible.
> 
> Best regards,
> -Pushpasis
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:33 PM Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Authors,
>>
>> am I right in thinking that the ball is still in your camp and you
>> need Shraddha to look at some of the comments?
>> The draft has been in Revised I-D Needed for 5 months now.
>>
>> -m
>>
>> Le 2018-06-19 à 11:00, Pushpasis Sarkar a écrit :
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> Once again sorry for the delay. Please find answers to some of your
>>> points inline.
>>>
>>> Hi Shraddha,
>>>
>>> Please find attached the XML draft for the next revision with
>>> changes taken care by Uma and myself. Please add your changes and
>>> reply back on the comments on OSPF sections that I have requested
>>> you to take look at