From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>, Chris Bowers
 <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Thread-Topic: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Thread-Index: AQHTbscrx2s7Rpz+eUO+236/it6eKqM2qbKAgECPuwCAAdCpgIAJ7Z5w
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:09:42 +0000
Message-ID: <32138_1516781382_5A683F46_32138_252_6_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EB2C497@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CAHzoHbvqNfm9Bk=qu+L5BT8uWOyQK2h3AhzYebSTZtQMV4csdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413527B1C@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
 <CAHzoHbs3NBvZQjM6A7rF5P2JmAdcWZQjFf_cvNiUi_vrkUxKJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268541353093B@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F57268541353093B@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/kq7SAVF3QyMLv4n2Mvbyzl3_r9Y>
Precedence: list

Hi Uma,

I have just posted the new rev that includes your change.

Brgds,


-----Original Message-----
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 02:32
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: rtgwg-chairs; RTGWG
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Hi Chris and Co-authors,

Something to this spirit before the last bullet point in Section 2.

   o   SPF computation order:  A SPF trigger can be common to  multiple IGP=
 areas or levels (e.g., IS-IS Level1/Level2) or=20
        for multiple address families with multi-topologies. There is no sp=
ecified order for SPF computation today and=20
        it is implementation dependent. In such scenarios, if the order of =
SPF computation done
        in A and B for each area/level/topology/SPF-algorithm is different,=
 there is a=20
        possibility for a micro-loop to appear.=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
BR,
--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bowers [mailto:chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:49 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Uma,

Could you propose some specific text to add to the document to address your=
 comment?

Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> wrot=
e:
> Support and have a following comment and want to see this addressed.
>
>
>
> Section 2:
>
>
>
>  I saw SPF computation time has been discussed, while it is true this=20
> is relatively a smaller issue when compared to mismatch in SPF delay=20
> with different trigger algos across various vendors; it depends on the=20
> size of the network + mix of legacy and new nodes.
>
>  Any ways, my comment:
>
>   I would like to see add one more bullet point with regard to SPF=20
> computation order impact on the micro loops  for a trigger i.e., a=20
> trigger which is common to multiple levels/areas, multiple topologies=20
> and multiple SPF-algorithms (in extreme case).
>
>  There is no specified order today and its implementation dependent=20
> and IMO this too would be a significant contributor (of course, not=20
> asking to specify the order here) and visible once the SPF=20
> delay/trigger-algo issue is fixed across. So this is worth being listed h=
ere.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
>
>
> From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:19 AM
> To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
>
>
>
> RTGWG,
>
> This email starts the two week WG last call for=20
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-stateme
> nt/
>
>
> Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this
>
> informational document, along with the reasoning behind that support=20
> or
>
> opposition.
>
>
>
> IPR:
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond=20
> to
>
> this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.=20
> The
>
> response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
>
> not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from
>
> each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
>
>
>
> This last call will end on Thursday, December 21st.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris and Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

___________________________________________________________________________=
______________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles 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 el=
ectroniques 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 inf=
ormation 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 dele=
te 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.