Re: Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)

Jen Linkova <> Mon, 01 July 2019 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33CB1200C1; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pfp3fsBeySAm; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4115B1200E6; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c11so11095326qkk.8; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JtS15zslDXmGcxB9VU/JbsCJcQxUKPFfn1+qcULaL7E=; b=FobAzIQwkeNKx11qNzEX7q+lmIjopSMgP+28aY4CckTOeA1mNhSFNHYPV1HfRIup0b XzPq98Mc8TnRwP/PTdNqdIragRb9LgqoOx4S8WpVnMDZ7lJo0a4t6VkT/QcHTwpUj6yM 9HhMae3WC2cP8iBDRhs89AtfwABPQRBzof+y+olStjmTHo0dGdG/dFeBuYN2hXYslAfW ywfFR3wcmCigYYjKW13PaLMd8MK26xTiwPwBlnLJbneZ1M/aF/bFhgdE9f6Gstfo2VXP i3rOGMoc5FU0nQ6xNdeFtNOxc6AJueIU33aeeFNHuYaVT8CT+T1ebFkURaB9stvq3lXu L++Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JtS15zslDXmGcxB9VU/JbsCJcQxUKPFfn1+qcULaL7E=; b=WumXj3WUggXd8/3XK33qvppr0JO8LfTIDZBxY60CwRTBjyT7YlpT0FO+O6RUHO7Buc mLPTqt3H5asWy941CP5XRHNJBg6fWdGdPdSOJ38uid0KMeyyB2h4RyNh8QKAqjOK8IJE sEKG84n3uyGIGtFMi3juk9IlINYOIU5fJe++2hHKncbINT/ONrepxlL4WoRJtcdSE5xK f80CiWwWl8Dh6aA+N1WzhaeBN6YgQnmnA2EVHlAwuB8op9wFx3o7o2v6u0cDeF7GDi1I RhPsdqR1vfCUBTo+LqDEGfaOK9AYWrBPFpMR2m/+/qjPsZt4wm0C9IZGH4LwWyv2prKc hUAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcShgQNBaD/ONSoYvdqLUzIc/vpPBi9h21D0l5WoRzeXUn9mIg W6mkdq6uChcYnS5LZFdqtnj4kbjEW1GbEGe0fH54N3qMCHI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhRSpnhqW7IZ2caL+2DO5qxc8jOyN6nuY3XXmgqU3GXygC9q9ses1FI2epmn2Nwb1GdMweInTG2HNXZYSYSVs=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:98e:: with SMTP id 136mr19657365qkj.444.1561991008259; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:23:17 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)
To: Deborah Brungard <>
Cc: The IESG <>, Ronald Bonica <>, rtgwg-chairs <>,, Routing WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 14:23:31 -0000

Hi Deborah,

Thank you very much for reading the draft and providing the feedback!

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:12 AM Deborah Brungard via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Similar to Alvaro's (F),  I find a couple of sentences confusing.
> I think it would be very helpful to clarify the scope of this document (in
> this document), especially as Alvaro notes, the same working group
> is progressing a PS document with another solution.
> Examples:
> - Abstract: I find the sentence "attempts..complete" solution a bit in conflict.
> "Attempts" - either it does or doesn't. "complete" is questionable as it is focused
> on a set of use cases. Suggest:
> This document attempts to define a complete solution to this problem
> /s/
> This document examines currently available mechanisms for providing a solution
> to this problem for a broad range of enterprise topologies.
> - Section 4:
> "The method described in the current document is functionally equivalent, but it is
> intended to be easier to understand for enterprise network operators."
> I don't find the justification "easier to understand for enterprise network operators" to be
> convincing. Especially if there is already a PS document being progressed in the same working
> group. Hopefully the PS document will also be easy to understand for both operators and vendors.
> Suggest a better qualifier, even simply:
> but it is intended to be easier to understand for enterprise network operators
> /s/
> but it is based on application of existing mechanisms for the described scenarios

I've incorporated your suggestions!
The diff:

The full text:

Please let me know if you believe your comments have not been fully addressed!

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry