Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 84DA9132F7C; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 KlqLh2bVKQxM; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 0E79912ECEC; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.roach.at (cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v9BFTYBM020272 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:29:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80] claimed to be Svantevit.roach.at
Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com" <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
References: <150767541457.24751.687319228801244172.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <28717_1507713511_59DDE1E7_28717_181_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA865E9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <c6135339-e712-0e96-0947-16ee25357ecd@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:29:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28717_1507713511_59DDE1E7_28717_181_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA865E9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/QRXbcxirxc3PBGJ7khQtp_1SW6c>
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, 11 Oct 2017 15:29:41 -0000
On 10/11/17 4:18 AM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for your review. > Some comments inline > Your proposals all look good to me. One additional comment, below. > > Section 4 begins: > > This document defines a two-step convergence initiated by the router > detecting a failure and advertising the topological changes in the > IGP. This introduces a delay between the convergence of the local > router and the network wide convergence. > > This reads backwards to me. With this technique, the network converges first, followed by an introduced delay, followed by router convergence. Right? > [SLI] The network converges first, then the local router thanks to the introduced local delay. Yes, so I would suggest rephrasing the above as: This document defines a two-step convergence initiated by the router detecting a failure and advertising the topological changes in the IGP. This introduces a delay between network-wide convergence and the convergence of the local router. /a
- Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ulo… Adam Roach
- RE: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg… stephane.litkowski
- Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg… Adam Roach
- RE: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg… stephane.litkowski