Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 18 January 2017 15:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 F2D3E129461 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:30:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 D5RT2oxnF7o7 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6850912940B for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 10214 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2017 16:24:14 +0100
Received: from nb-10510.ethz.ch (HELO ?82.130.103.143?) (82.130.103.143) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 18 Jan 2017 16:24:14 +0100
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with COMMENT)
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <148458441463.22600.5019628198022110802.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAEFuwkit6gUtMuV90vFaFHe4NwK+1bsSCv3EEmhjKYStF7M0Ew@mail.gmail.com> <CAEFuwkgY6n7sUqtFJEo-i=S91i4XkwhdSTZz5NQwG4LyP3+9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <70c7e026-c591-3ed7-8100-6ec850ad18c8@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:24:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEFuwkgY6n7sUqtFJEo-i=S91i4XkwhdSTZz5NQwG4LyP3+9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/atENzzRxv-mXEpocRBWw1t_Mjdw>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 18 Jan 2017 15:30:59 -0000
Sorry, it was 'this document proposes' (not recommends)... yes better to use 'specifies' instead! On 18.01.2017 03:51, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: > Hi Mirja, > > - Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the > approach proposed, this > document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the > entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit > on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset." > Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem > inaccurate. > > [Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then? > > Actually, I don't see the term 'recommends' anywhere in the current version. > So now I am not sure what was the comment about :( Request you to clarify > this a bit, so that I can take the right resolution.. > > Thanks and regards, > -Pushpasis > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com > <mailto:pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > > Thanks a lot for the comments. And sorry for not being able to reply > earlier. Please find some comments inline. > > Thanks > -Pushpasis > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net > <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Overall comment: This reads rather like an informational rfc; however > given that rfc7490 is standards track, I guess that's fine. > > More specific comments: > - More abbreviations could be spelled out to make it easier to read. > > [Pushpasis] I will try to add as many as I can in the next version :) > > - Not sure what section 3 tells me; but I'm also not an expert. > > [Pushpasis] Section 3 is about a using the same solution proposed to find > a node-protected R-LFA path by running a forward-SPF on the PQ node(s) to > select parameters of the same paths discovered, so that the computing > router on discovering multiple R-LFA backup paths to a single destination > can run some backup-path-selection policies on the same path parameters > collected (while doing computing F-SPF) to select one or more best suited > R-LFA backup paths for the destination. Hope it explains :) You may also > want to refer to RFC7916 for more explanation. > > - Also section 3: "As already specified in Section 2.3.4 to limit the > computational > overhead of the proposed approach, forward SPF computations MUST be > run on a selected subset from the entire set of PQ-nodes computed in > the network, with a finite limit on the number of PQ-nodes in the > subset." > I guess you don't need the upper case MUST here. > > [Pushpasis] Actually this was suggested to be exactly a MUST in WG > discussions on the WG mail > > - Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the > approach proposed, this > document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the > entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit > on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset." > Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem > inaccurate. > > [Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then? > > - And also section 2.3.4: Could you maybe suggest or discuss an > appropriate default value? > > [Pushpasis] I have myself implemented it for Juniper and the default > value as 16. I can specify the same as a suggested default. But I am not > sure it will be raise any concern in the WG or not. If you suggest, I can > go ahead and put this in the next version. > > Thanks once again > -Pushpasis > >
- Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgw… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Pushpasis Sarkar
- RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Uma Chunduri
- Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Pushpasis Sarkar