[spring] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind 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 have a question which is probably simply the result of not having had time to
read all spring docs in detail: Can you maybe indicate how the requirements at
the end of section 2 have been addressed in the spring architecture doc?

And another question on section 3: Wouldn't it also make sense to have a
mechanism that reports if local repair was used and respectively the traffic
was not routed over the indicated path but a different one?

And another comment on section 2: You write that you need a way to check the
liveness of a path if used for primary and backup, however, this is also true
for the case where the two paths are used with ECMP as it usually doesn't help
you that much if you only receive half of your packets. Only if you send all
packets over both paths, you don't need a active check, however, it should be
mentioned that this also needs more capacity and can therefore cause
unnecessary congestion.