RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mon, 17 December 2018 09:13 UTC
Return-Path: <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
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 3C3D7129C6A; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:13:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=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 d-ua3Npvo4A0; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09563128BCC; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.86.153]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id wBH9DhVL019054; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900
Received: from vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36136EA813B; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900 (JST)
Received: from jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.87.134]) by vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4C9EA8121; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [129.60.13.98]) by jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2680D4007FE; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900 (JST)
From: Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
Message-ID: <1ebfd8bb-20df-b469-4806-7d8b305d2e20@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:26 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CC-Mail-RelayStamp: 1
To: rtg-ads@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/TmXhQ-rQEiSTIBI3At3eCGmZYbs>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:13:50 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda Review Date: Dec. 17th, 2018 IETF LC End Date: Dec. 18th, 2018 Intended Status: Informational Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This document analyzes the impact of SPF delay algorithm and associated triggers on IGP micro-loops. This document presents useful information on how mixing strategies may lead to longer micro-loops. The document is well organized, easy to read. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Nits: 1) Section 2 says "That part may be the main part for the first iteration but is not for subsequent IGP events. In addition, this part is very implementation specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay algorithm may be standardized." It would be better to explain what "That part" and "this part" mean. I guess the text should look like: "The time to update the FIB may be the main part for the first iteration of IGP event but is not for subsequent IGP events. In addition, the time to update the FIB is very implementation specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay algorithm may be standardized." Thanks, Tomonori Takeda
- RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-stat… Tomonori Takeda
- RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-… stephane.litkowski
- RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-… stephane.litkowski
- Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-… Tomonori Takeda