Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 19 January 2017 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7632127ABE; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:57:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148481984787.10321.18432401406725499674.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:57:27 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/hn6IzZoOuG5IBDEBt0QINU-yvrw>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:57:28 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: Discuss

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
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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document mentions manageability in his title. Hence my special
focus.
I'm with Eric Vyncke here. His OPS DIR review is:

Not being an expert in LFA, the review focus was only on operation.
And, due to the density and specialization of the I-D, I would like to
ask the authors whether they read RFC 5706 about 'ops and mgmt
guidelines', i.e., to check whether this I-D considered migration from an
existing LFA to the new one, interoperations with previous LFA and how
correct operations can be verified.
As the core topic is about loop-free alternates, we can assume that fault
management and operations are at the core of this I-D. But, I encourage
the authors to quickly review their document with RFC 5706 in mind.

After reading the document (and with basic knowledge of RLFA), I'm unable
to tell at this point if RFC 7916 is still valid for this new
functionality, if it needs to be updated, or even if
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10#section-3
is complete in light of RFC 5706. I'll be watching the discussion with
interest.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-  The resulting Remote-LFA
   alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-nodes) may not
provide
   node-protection for all destinations covered by the same, in case of
   failure of the primary nexthop node.

Covered by the same?

- There are also some nits and typos such as " uitilized" in the
abstract.