IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: progressing & AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 22 December 2016 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 078CD12951B; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:12:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 OKdpVRpOVlQ1; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wj0-x234.google.com (mail-wj0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::234]) (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 9A23F1294D5; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wj0-x234.google.com with SMTP id ez4so310306wjd.0; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:12:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EOj8NM1sUYvyN+5brFuwrx+inctQwqt/yR4irKwmR7U=; b=XC7mwUWlHDTbXG73pDPWxfLoFQQjS2sczaQWTOCXSGrW3WdskwT8VAlESrZ3DpjPh8 8xI+5Qwo7O2S7evlz0X+kQAqYLgPpjjP6GF3wr4aGVE94wVGY+M2tcut+zTMJcznFg84 6Wy/mmfqUXCFAvo0PfpRs69GzD4e0vZC9gQ8kCVSmhbnQfPlRXcNzcGrLAPecWjpgHO/ 8DCZ2Hu4AqmYpSo64c6dnBuq1zoJtmUiUTpzLCbJprNDhYNvemh9VLUmariVJdg0ET2i FBxnMeBR1khUY8o26SLciJrmNJGVKMorMj1GpYf9sCk85d86ZHIXrX8y4WtkrSwgeVIn w5Kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EOj8NM1sUYvyN+5brFuwrx+inctQwqt/yR4irKwmR7U=; b=ovsQesRwGN7pFLalIqn+WatH0HeG+ZQgobY0AHNGTgvExdULu8L7fgQ5QHLYaLZKVY kVsNqIR3sbbdVHi7xMVNTNQLfbnmckRHbe+6UHGgRyzYPLLMg7ol7v1TwoLwzDgFywUx zzicF5hPRHY8RQe8xe1iOONdOL++CwgysaawKCRtHvNTrw6Tg+mfKi6aZgpYK00mC3+V 6khuEiqdMGXe+odOpiVcODyCjrPXaafGwMYLtgO/Gx72wc8gwui39Fy2rnxjHE4eQ8e0 t3iRYNFGkCNGJ4iIA1GsUKnAc8A8Qo/7CkIFd6wObwldo1S3zJwzoN7qUQ0g6Lqeo8qm NtCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL/G0srSCdUmr4KtOY9AYwUNRzbhFrrXwbTqrOiRTBV4vydGW39B54e+2WodzRn4IVjqAayMV+hKDRz+w==
X-Received: by 10.194.52.42 with SMTP id q10mr6926561wjo.50.1482379948001; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:12:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.145.41 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:12:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEFuwkjuhrFF5VWdKhwuvBjLuvGdX-5PN1MVYEM3LqFLB2LdNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdknV6oK-2P7VUeYyD1CSXLT8XpBDoj4W0aSHHTbCuoqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEFuwkjuhrFF5VWdKhwuvBjLuvGdX-5PN1MVYEM3LqFLB2LdNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 23:12:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rejBWnAvDAHG+koXWHXEx8cfFsy4bDqDBtVxido_=py0A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: progressing & AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bacc7be390ff70544377ae3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/rjfEM73p1gLdMrXSbjrkVka_Aec>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection@ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:12:31 -0000

Hi Pushpasis,

Sure - a separate section is fine.  A detailed example would be useful for
those who don't have years of
thinking through the different cases yet.

Thanks,
Alia

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi Alia,
>
> Many many thanks for the comments.
>
> Regarding your comment on an example with multiple ecmp primary next-hop
> nodes, is it okay if we include it as a separate section? I do have an
> example in mind, but am not sure including it directly in the problem
> statement will complicate it for the readers to understand it, or not.
>
> I will wait for your suggestion on the above. :)
>
> Thanks and regards,
> -Pushpasis
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As is customary, I have done my AD review of
>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08.  First, I would like to thank
>> the authors - Pushpasis, Shraddha, Chris, Hannes, and Stephane - for their
>> work on this well-written document.
>>
>> I do not have any substantial comments from my review, so I am happy to
>> request an IETF Last Call on this and have scheduled it for the Jan 19 IESG
>> telechat.
>>
>> My one comment is that it would be useful to have a slightly larger clear
>> example where the primary path has multiple ECMP next-hop nodes.  This can
>> be a point of complexity and is not really described clearly as such.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alia
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email