RE: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 1EF2F12008A; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 1pfoeUCfCCWh; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2DC120720; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 16F56120791; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:35:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.63]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D9CF9180067; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:35:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM6E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::f5a7:eab1:c095:d9ec%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:35:21 +0200
From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.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>
Subject: RE: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTQhliY+Tb6d3dakOJuZoW8aTr46LeXQAggABIwQCAACMZYA==
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:35:20 +0000
Message-ID: <27395_1507736121_59DE3A39_27395_245_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA8695A@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <150767541457.24751.687319228801244172.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <28717_1507713511_59DDE1E7_28717_181_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA865E9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <c6135339-e712-0e96-0947-16ee25357ecd@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <c6135339-e712-0e96-0947-16ee25357ecd@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/dGa7y2CRW_vir08tAeE2ZLUPYe4>
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 15:35:25 -0000

Ack will fix it

Thanks


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 17:30
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; The IESG
Cc: chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)



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


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.