Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)
"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 20 June 2016 09:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C5412D9CD for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 02:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aJHV2lJ5BS0U for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 02:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2F112D9CB for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 02:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17816 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2016 11:32:31 +0200
Received: from p5dec2e4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (93.236.46.79) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 20 Jun 2016 11:32:30 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <35af3b43f87e43448e6b9cb5fa882d1f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:32:30 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9BC61ECF-75AC-43E1-8B70-E10C81417D88@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20160613113941.12354.86828.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <35af3b43f87e43448e6b9cb5fa882d1f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3xVCW2hEpSOugR1f3gBp_4CAI7M>
Cc: "vbeeram@juniper.net" <vbeeram@juniper.net>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:32:35 -0000
Hi Matt, thanks! Sounds good! Missed the first occurrence of RRO; so that’s fine! Mirja > Am 16.06.2016 um 00:34 schrieb Matt Hartley (mhartley) <mhartley@cisco.com>: > > Mirja, > > Thanks for your comments! > >> Minor comments/questions: >> >> - Please spell out RRO in section 4.2 > > It was previously done in section 3. It doesn't need doing again, does it? > >> >> - Why are the following SHOULDs not MUSTs? >> "[...] the Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the SRLG recording >> restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG >> sub-object(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path >> message." > > Good question. The first one should definitely change for consistency with RFC 5420, and I think the second one should too. > >> - Why do you need two (potentially different) policies for the two points >> below. Shouldn't a node that provides SRLG information initially, also >> always provide updates (as the initial information might otherwise be >> wrong and therefore not be able to address the originial intention anymore >> - disjoint paths)? >> "o Whether the node is allowed to participate in SRLG collection. >> o Whether the node should notify changes to collected SRLG >> information to endpoint nodes as described in section 5.2." >> > > Merging them seems reasonable. > > Cheers > > Matt >
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind