IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06 [AUTHOR RESPONSE NEEDED]

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Fri, 01 May 2015 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ice@cisco.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 043921A8ABC for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2015 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 OWjnWHVdrKac for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2015 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 409311A0362 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2015 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1966; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1430493642; x=1431703242; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DbhoIpXza8ckMVZzpk52XdkJ7cbSqCBjZe2Hnf7giIM=; b=LiW5H5Jeui5VFnbSi1r2mHq8E+4D004V2uo5B8FNYQ802NF/INwJLdN4 KypeXNYxDtYOPGBY+pJJsFzi+OcWs1JXhYupMigQ5WqenDJSphl4yxFxK XGntkHZWaX+0tYfuDH7NP2wgih7bAc4a5iJ6CGItkkAGl0+uBPYZhFgjV k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ArBQClmENV/xbLJq1cg19cgx2wZQEBAQEBAQUBgQKQYgmBSgqGBAKCEhQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIAEBAQMBAQEBIEsLBQsLDgoCAiYCAiEGMAYTiBcDCQgNs1qODA2FGAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEgSGEdYUigk2CBTMHgmgvgRYFmmSBVY8ihlsjYIMWPDGCRQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,350,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="475996061"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2015 15:20:40 +0000
Received: from ams-iwijnand-8818.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8818.cisco.com [10.60.202.89]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t41FKefe029460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 May 2015 15:20:40 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06 [AUTHOR RESPONSE NEEDED]
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rcR70zoTU6VWONJUZjWua4rnNLjEVNCYDqARn9gWkjoKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 17:20:39 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <93A4E219-22C3-44B6-95B1-5609A383E230@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rcR70zoTU6VWONJUZjWua4rnNLjEVNCYDqARn9gWkjoKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/lpPfyN0O1e5FHPnYmOXIdgiQPQE>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr@tools.ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 01 May 2015 15:20:44 -0000

Thanks Alia, we’ll work out the gaps you mentioned and come back to you ASAP.

Ice.

> On 01 May 2015, at 16:56, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The IETF Last Call has expired without comment.  I have not seen any responses to
> the two gaps that I mentioned in my AD review.
> 
> If this draft is to be on the May 14 telechat, I need responses and resolved draft by
> May 7.
> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email