Re: [spring] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Spencer,

I took the editor role from Stefano.

Please see inline:

On 14/12/17 05:11 , Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: 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-spring-resiliency-use-cases/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with Ben's point about RFC 2119/8174 requirements keyword usage. For
> example, I'm looking at the MUST NOT in
>
>    A first protection strategy consists in excluding any local repair
>     but instead use end-to-end path protection where each SPRING path is
>     protected by a second disjoint SPRING path.  In this case local
>     protection MUST NOT be used.
>
> and wondering why that's normative. I would have guessed that the point was,
> "if you use local protection, you're not carrying out the end-to-end path
> protection strategy that this section describes", but that isn't an RFC
> 2119/8174 interoperation keyword thing. What am I missing here?

tend to agree, changed the last sentence in that paragraph to:

"In this case, the local protection is not used along the path."

>
> I agree with Adam's confusion about
>
>     Usually, in a normal routing protocol operations, microloops do not
>     last long enough and in general they are noticed during the time it
>     takes for the network to converge.
>
> I assumed that this was supposed to say something like
>
>     Usually, in a normal routing protocol operations, microloops do not
>     last long enough to be noticed during the time it
>     takes for the network to converge.

agreed, changed the text to the above proposed text.

I will post the new revision once we close on all open items from you 
and other reviewers.

thanks,
Peter

>
> but the current text isn't clear.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> .
>