Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09: (with COMMENT)
"Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 22 June 2015 14:41 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@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 82AF31ACD65; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] 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 p88RRu16xfxv; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEA81A1B0D; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150622144146.17459.58140.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:41:46 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/wBhozpfwlJCwHYZP238AFQ5beM8>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability@tools.ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:41:49 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09: No Objection 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-lfa-manageability/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The abstract mentions a lot of things that this document covers: “provides operational feedback on LFA, highlights some limitations, and proposes a set of refinements to address those limitations. It also proposes required management specifications.” The Introduction presents a quick guide to what some sections cover (good idea!), but not all sections are mentioned there. It would be nice to cover all the sections in the “document map” in the introduction. 2. In section 3.1 it may not be clear to all readers why P4 is not an LFA for P8. In all the other cases there is an explicit statement (a sentence or two) that explains and clarifies. 3. In Section 6.2.4.2 the document talks about signaling color information, it includes a set of requirements..and it reads “How signaling is done is out of scope of the document”, but then you go on and point to a specific solution. Even if there might be a high certainty that the solution you point at is moving on in the process, is good, should be used, etc.. I think this document would be better served by just defining the requirements (specially if you’re pointing at the solution as out of scope). You do the same in 6.2.4.4. 4. The IS-IS overload bit is mentioned in several places as important to consider. Are there similar considerations related to the use of the OSPF MaxLinkMetric or the R-bit? If so, please include them..if not, please explain why in the document. [BTW, there is no reference pointing to the OL bit.]
- Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rt… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- RE: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rt… stephane.litkowski
- Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rt… Alia Atlas