ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06.txt>
IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> Thu, 16 April 2015 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.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 7D69A1B3501; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 f152J_FIuhL7; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B091B34F9; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr.shepherd@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com, draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr.ad@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06.txt>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150416191841.23453.23603.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:18:41 -0700
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/PlurDIxR2_JV68779ddNWHFW9x8>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:18:42 -0000
IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation I have two questions about missing content that I raised during my AD review. Discussion can happen during IETF Last Call. It would have been nice to have a sentence or two in there that considered the operational and troubleshooting aspects of MoFRR. For instance, can mtrace work? Would lsp-ping fail to work on the secondary UMH because of packets being dropped? I also recall a private discussion about the interaction of MoFRR and IGP reconvergence after a failure and whether there can be relevant micro-forwarding loops as a result. It would be very useful to have a sentence or two in this draft that discusses whether micro-forwarding loops are a concern that can either be frequently avoided because the secondary UMH or that needs to be considered in modeling or.... ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr/
- ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-rtgwg… IETF Secretariat
- ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-rtgwg… IETF Secretariat
- ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-rtgwg… IETF Secretariat