IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Wed, 06 December 2017 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.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 D25CD127B52; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:54:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZsD0iSDKGKPe; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:54:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D841124D85; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:54:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1FE6ADC4D8F5C; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:54:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:54:23 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.170]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.207]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:54:21 -0800
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Thread-Topic: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Thread-Index: AQHTbsc0vIkAxUibik+bEdqNui2TGqM2tlIg
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 19:54:21 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413527B1C@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAHzoHbvqNfm9Bk=qu+L5BT8uWOyQK2h3AhzYebSTZtQMV4csdw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHzoHbvqNfm9Bk=qu+L5BT8uWOyQK2h3AhzYebSTZtQMV4csdw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413527B1Csjceml521mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/OSd_qTULtijWya9DLKyWxCfepqM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Dec 2017 19:54:29 -0000

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-statement/


<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement/>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email