progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
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 DF6AE1B3503 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 JGXdTqj1R41t for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (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 C3A861B3500 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbfy7 with SMTP id fy7so49271495obb.2 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=2ORSBbQw+0WUT8zkbjHfJtNMvJqnLA+jWl/ur13wKxY=; b=OaiF0ifi6yTBkhdms/v2pKjOcpIIVZNsXhcg5FxbZjuhczXuNehntcw6BF9l+KgeXw 3VAuCxz/9BnC9hIZM1yhT7E7jOJslzZicsAgM2sYt7ptRyBV7zXZo76BSVrAl/k5e/Cd 8dkJyNvMQx8W9ynNq0/DTKP8QSQSH3v7o6Q6hny99XfYYojXp6FKMB9EZhZ7KKG+nS3H anLDp2/PeJUlFXcnwmQRgVxUZnWEqmP5QHhk4HUHizpXM77ZnYk+azEmQ18UVu96yuqo RsysSeW3jCUZabqjd41hz39jzDofJzo9GwLQAxCqMOP2XXKOqJKYPrb9o8frabczh1QD X8tA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.175.213 with SMTP id y204mr21807508oie.22.1429211973276; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.44.198 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:19:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcpPxtO7e8sM42qEtzCOoyYsVUZB070Xua4deJreOLsLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr@tools.ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cf05af9da960513dc57a3"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/buZNw6E2Gh37Yrkfvo9TQF_hnaw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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 19:19:35 -0000

As is usual, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06.  I
don't have any specific comments on the text(assuming that the RFC Editor
will pick up the typos I saw).  However, I do see a couple gaps that I
think would be very useful to address.   Feel free to convince me otherwise
- but I think these will make for a stronger RFC.

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....

I'd welcome discussion to clarify these two aspects while the draft is in
IETF Last Call.  I'd like to have these resolved by May 7 so that it can be
on the IESG telechat on May 15.

Thanks for the good work,
Alia