Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Wed, 14 February 2018 15:05 UTC
Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
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 2D418129C6A; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:05:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pCSSxu5P_gY1; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x235.google.com (mail-pg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A7F5126BFD; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id o1so2029500pgn.4; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:05:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gWlxKsYNgutWQdo3q3OZdLKY5z/w7j1r9yaaa5uFL6o=; b=SMFxQOiJmZ3f4cH2RDSe44JhnMqqPX8VtNmfybzq8d8dpQE5Pp8bVFLnBcPov+5WOS R4DAen2HkwrEB/3KkMfuEIWTYWJGH7z+HQD5oXui+PIozGLzZ44ljR4/h7Mb1kSMZMOn 4icLxcsKVPDWRcYKNS/auhTv+bnztp/973WGrrefVoGV7J+mkY1qCYvL8Mw9rnQgvGed q2suh0wJPkFX4g0GlVtqyHrTipHHRk4o0MSixdel82hkeRSsrJFvdPspPLbxlu9daWRA hNk1L4cL3HJUv1rXSKIrRveJt7ao7wnPxhvVlDNkGuU1ain3+7g/pJdS3qIUyoxOATJ0 IAGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gWlxKsYNgutWQdo3q3OZdLKY5z/w7j1r9yaaa5uFL6o=; b=JaE+9+YPiES/WnihvCnVUjkPDKIqI8i3P1ZXGeQ7UC/FsIF5TEZ6XOaQ5mp6xGCTdB TyiSmu1fCpOCD+E9MPs635WcGRCQr+6Pos+W4xMzbGoSVq42/I3l9AN/AuKLt1aLtIaS pKuiZwUwt5EmDdsxcI+nJSppvWg6LmWBKklsctI9LA7lJLlMAxHvbLRwLREJKBqlcMuF iRvP2L/ONzgj/z+Ul8q4/JuuQ2rp97Guz7ivB4C/IIc0ZEu2J9N2dPloUkKi69JMszAw RUfeZbGO118p4vLlJ5INZxJKQvyTDDIlXMRPhKqv7wsUNKKM2Xcmrr6oGQS+98BqHrUs Gt+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPABNIO3vqucZIVENgAgmY4qjebt9gpk9QJ+hiBw38BB2m0kj0hr WZsnwrlZYAt9GPeG+StUXT2d17HtMtrDb7IiGCg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225olIPaJf/eMl9EM24Z457OX9QGxjAd2mCAH07KFtJbDiGDkdFrUsgS5EkbMT2vbv4N0nrlPHGCXQ8kcUCj62E=
X-Received: by 10.99.171.70 with SMTP id k6mr1323932pgp.355.1518620713719; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:05:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.182.129 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:05:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <23D10DC7-C33C-4F19-8358-4B6D6B1FF5CF@kuehlewind.net>
References: <150644890311.20830.6212136664552694640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+YzgTtqT9Ojs8Ed8fwW3FCLGVaJMTgCxsonH1Gxe-H7Q85orA@mail.gmail.com> <BBCF6104-8351-4C90-BD38-6A515DCAB9E5@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTt77KmC1g2+C==c0F2BxWS0PEiuP-R0SNvWiv=_OO7s9Q@mail.gmail.com> <FFA062AD-A257-4AA8-8DE6-C7B03330DF81@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTsqAyWY=gepg=moJCmDr=JDTop_sy-+SHJ8u1qn8g2jsQ@mail.gmail.com> <cfda7846-8637-f6c7-07dc-9979bd2fa7b2@labn.net> <CA+YzgTt-8g7-7juWg0zBqah=CPLVzktGacWa19rFoK5XoSMy4g@mail.gmail.com> <AD4CDD02-ECE6-49ED-886D-3B4631329496@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTsetruY9Fk98dh_cDEnqYbA2H9m3+fW6LKuYniJLmucbA@mail.gmail.com> <2074ADF5-C8E1-4F4A-A524-554B26BEA681@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTsY2NppQeWCLh9pTChK4n-GZxLgML30=feR8XVnLSN=-A@mail.gmail.com> <559976FE-E361-4CCF-A153-3D9F3B860D7B@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTtRTHmkKCV1vY=otGtfeHAFKz6gZ3+6VyzYkzOXDWg0oQ@mail.gmail.com> <23D10DC7-C33C-4F19-8358-4B6D6B1FF5CF@kuehlewind.net>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:05:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTtyq-ep4Ejg8eMV0QJAZ_ERu7RXZFESEwJ=wbxSY5RDCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1bdad8309f3505652d7003"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/9V6IrpMCn5qVKBRWgV5NqKYT-Nc>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:05:21 -0000
Thanks for clearing the discuss! I'll push in an update to the draft with the changes I proposed yesterday. Regards, -Pavan On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) < ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > Hi Paven, > > thanks for the explanation and sorry for the finally quite long delay. I > had just not enough of RSVP knowledge to figure out how you are detecting a > node failure. Thanks for the explanation below. I also didn’t realize that > the previous default refresh interval was recommended as 30 second, which > seems high. > > Knowing that there is a mechanism to detect node failure and stop sending, > I will clear my discuss now. Again thanks for the explanation and patient! > > I believe actually your newly proposed text is more clear and I would > still recommend to use that. I believe what confused me most was the use of > the term „retransmission“ in the current section 2.3. It’s not fully wrong > but if your motivation is to maintain a shorter refresh interval (as > previously used) in situation where it is unclear if state was refreshed > with the last message, I would phrase it like this, as in our new proposed > text. > > Mirja > > > > > Am 14.02.2018 um 03:21 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram < > vishnupavan@gmail.com>: > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > Glad that the proposed text helped in understanding this better. > > > > All that the text is trying to say is the following -- > > In traditional RSVP (2961 capable) implementations, the interval used > for refreshing state associated with unacked Path/Resv messages is the same > as the regular refresh interval (R). But since we are now advocating the > use of a large value for R, it makes sense to maintain a distinction > between the refresh interval for unacked Path/Resv messages and the regular > refresh interval. > > > > Your concerns (if I understood them right) aren't really against the > procedures discussed in <rsvp-te-scaling-rec>. They are against how > traditional RSVP (2961 capable) works. Let me see if I can address those. > Please see inline (prefixed VPB).. > > > > Regards, > > -Pavan > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) < > ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > > Hi Pavan, > > > > thanks a lot! This text change did help me to at least understand better > what you are proposing. I'm still concerned that in a situation where all > messages probably have been lost in the rapid retry phase, which is an > indication of congestion, you still keep sending messages with a rather low > but still higher rate than in the regular refresh interval of 20min. > > Can you explain why this is considered to be beneficial? > > > > [VPB] This is because RSVP can't determine how long congestion would > last on the neighboring node and it is important for signaling state > (Path/Resv) to be kept in sync between neighbors. The congestion may clear > up a couple of seconds after the rapid-retry phase (for a particular > message) is complete or it may clear up 24 hours later. As long as the > neighbor is deemed UP (is able to maintain "hello" session), signaling > state associated with that neighbor will keep getting refreshed (this is > just how RSVP works). If the neighbor gets congested enough to bring down > the corresponding hello session, then appropriate "signaling adjacency > failure" actions (this may include state tear down) would come into play. > > > > > > I believe using some kind of extended exponential back-off would still > be more appropriate. Also e.g. if you actually send the message every 30s > for e.g. 20 minutes and don’t get an ACK, you might still want to give up > and log an error (termination condition), no? I hope that makes now sense > to you? > > > > [VPB] Let us assume that the implementation gives up after a few > retries and stops refreshing state associated with unacked Path/Resv > messages. What should happen to the "state" now? You can't retain the > state, because there is no prescribed way of determining when to start > refreshing the state again (Note -- neighbor never went down; hellos are > intact; interface to the neighbor is still UP). If you can't retain the > state, then you must tear it down. But that is too extreme an action to > take (especially if the data-plane is intact). I hope that explains why > implementations keep refreshing state. > > > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > Am 13.02.2018 um 19:13 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram < > vishnupavan@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > > > Thanks for the response! > > > It doesn't seem like we can make progress here if I keep recycling the > same set of responses. I seem to have exhausted the "this is normal RSVP > soft-state signaling behavior" line of argument :) > > > > > > I don't want to spend too much time arguing about a subtlety that > (probably) only folks who have implemented RSVP-TE understand. So, let me > try a different take on this. > > > > > > How about the following changes to the document? > > > > > > ** > > > - Remove Section 2.3 (this takes out the contentious text) > > > > > > - Make the following change in Section 3 > > > OLD: > > > o MUST make the default value of the configurable refresh interval > > > be a large value (10s of minutes). A default value of 20 minutes > > > is RECOMMENDED by this document. > > > > > > NEW: > > > o MUST make the default value of the configurable refresh interval > > > (R) be a large value (10s of minutes). A default value of 20 > > > > > > minutes is RECOMMENDED by this document. > > > o MUST use a separate refresh interval for refreshing state > associated > > > with unacknowledged Path/Resv messages (uR). A default value of > > > 30 seconds is RECOMMENDED by this document. > > > > > > - Make the following change in Appendix A. > > > OLD: > > > (d) Periodic Retransmission Interval for unacknowledged Path/Resv > > > messages (uR) - 30 seconds (Section 2.3). > > > If the Retry-Limit (Rl) is 7, then it takes 31.5 seconds for the > 7 > > > rapid retransmit steps to max out (The last delay from message 6 > > > to message 7 is 16 seconds). After the 7 rapid retransmit steps > > > are maxed out, the router starts periodic retransmission on a > > > slower timer. This document recommends the use of the > traditional > > > default refresh interval value of 30 seconds for this periodic > > > retransmission interval. > > > > > > NEW: > > > (d) Refresh interval for refreshing state associated with > > > unacknowledged Path/Resv messages (uR)- 30 seconds (Section 3). > > > The recommended refresh interval (R) value of 20 minutes (for an > > > > > > implementation supporting RI-RSVP) can not be used for refreshing > > > state associated with unacknowledged Path/Resv messages. This > > > document recommends the use of the traditional default refresh > > > interval value of 30 seconds for uR. > > > *** > > > > > > Let me know if the above changes address your concerns. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -Pavan > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) < > ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > > > Hi Pavan, > > > > > > I believe you that there may be implementation that transmit > indefinitely, however, that is not how I read RFC2961: > > > > > > " The staged retransmission will continue > > > until either an appropriate MESSAGE_ID_ACK object is received, or > the > > > rapid retry limit, Rl, has been reached.“ > > > > > > or > > > > > > „The sending node will retransmit the message until a message > > > acknowledgment is received or the message has been transmitted a > > > maximum number of times.“ > > > > > > For me these sentences say that one should not retransmit anymore > after the max number is reached. If this is implemented differently, that > is a not safe behavior and need to be clarified. There must be a > termination condition. It is not safe for the stability of the Internet to > retransmit packets indefinitely. Packet loss can have may reason but > continuous packet loss is a clear sign of congestion that one can not be > ignored. > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 12.01.2018 um 14:15 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram < > vishnupavan@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > > > > > I thought the following response (sent on Oct 5th 2017) addressed > this concern. > > > > > > > > ** Copying text from an earlier email ** > > > > There is nothing new about Path and Resv messages getting > transmitted indefinitely (this is normal soft-state signaling behavior). > All that is being discussed in this section is how these transmissions get > paced after the rapid retry limit is reached. The slower timer transmission > will go on until either an ack is received (at which point the regular > "refresh interval" comes into play) or the corresponding LSP instance state > is torn down. > > > > ** > > > > > > > > Please let me know if this still doesn't address the concern. We can > set up a call and walk through the base RSVP specs. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) < > ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Vishnu, hi all, > > > > > > > > sorry but I lost a little bit track of this and looking at this now > the clarification provided below do not seem to address my concern. My > concern is that for messages (that a MESSAGE_ID object with the ACK_Desired > flag set), these messages would retransmit forever (even though only every > 30s) and there is not stop criteria to finally give up (and report an > error). > > > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 22.12.2017 um 08:44 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram < > vishnupavan@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > > > > > > > Please see if the responses above address your concerns. Please > let us know if there are any issues with progressing this document. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Please see below. > > > > > > > > > > On 11/13/2017 5:57 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote: > > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > > > > > > > Apologize for the delayed reply. > > > > > Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB). > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) < > ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vishnu, > > > > > > > > > > I don’t think what you proposed is a clarification at all. > RF2961 > > > > > clearly reads to me that you should not retry any more after > the > > > > > Rapid retry limit has been reached: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Rl is the maximum number of times a message will be > > > > > transmitted without being acknowledged.“ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please not that this section applies to "a message containing a > MESSAGE_ID object with the ACK_Desired flag set" and > > > > > > > > > > The ACK_Desired flag will typically be set only in trigger > messages. > > > > > > > > > > This means that these procedure does not apply to normal RSVP > refresh processing and that normal RFC2205 defined Refresh Processing or > Summary Refresh processing continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [VPB] Yes. As per RFC2961, the retry limit (Rl) is the maximum > number of times a message will be transmitted without being acknowledged. > But this just governs the number of times you retransmit the message during > the "rapid retransmission phase". > > > > > > > > > > RFC2961 is silent about what happens after the "rapid > retransmission phase" is complete and this is the clarification that is > being provided here in the <scaling-rec> draft. > > > > > > > > > > The draft is silent in general about anything that is *not* > modified by the draft. I think having the informative statement is > appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > Note that the associated RSVP Path/Resv state doesn't get cleaned > up after the "rapid retransmission" phase is complete. So at each > subsequent refresh-interval, the unacked Path/Resv message will be sent out > again (note that if there is no change in the state, the same MESSAGE_ID > would get used). This behavior has always existed in RSVP-TE > implementations -- so it is incorrect to deduce from the "RFC 2961" text > above that the retransmission of the unacked Path/Resv will never happen > after the "Rl" is reached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > Lou > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also RFC2961 suggests an initial Rf of 500ms with 7 retries > and and > > > > > delta of 2, that means you will see the following retries: > > > > > > > > > > 1. after 500ms > > > > > 2. after 1000ms > > > > > 3. after 2000ms > > > > > 4. after 4000ms > > > > > 5. after 8000ms > > > > > 6. after 16000ms > > > > > 7. after 32000ms > > > > > > > > > > and then give up. While you suggests to send all 300ms section > > > > > afterwards forever. That is not acceptable and can lead to > congestion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is not what is being suggested. > > > > > RFC2961 suggests an Rf of 500ms with 3 retries and a delta of 2. > So the rapid retransmissions would be: > > > > > 1. after 500ms > > > > > 2. after 1000ms > > > > > 3. after 2000ms. > > > > > > > > > > With the proposal in the <scaling-rec> draft, you would try 7 > times and then stop the "rapid retransmission phase". So, what that means > is that the rapid retransmission phase lasts 31.5 seconds (first retry is > after 500ms and the seventh retry is after 32000ms). After this "rapid > retransmission phase" is complete, you keep sending the message out every > 30000ms (30seconds is not 300ms) until an acknowledgement is received. > > > > > > > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 05.10.2017 um 22:27 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram > > > > > <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > This was discussed in my response to Elwyn. I apologize for > not > > > > > responding directly. > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC2961 doesn't discuss what to do with the retransmissions > after > > > > > the retry limit is reached. It doesn't discuss how > retransmissions > > > > > need to be paced after the rapid retries are stopped. Section > 2.3 > > > > > (ver 7) of the current draft clarifies this and proposes the > use of > > > > > a "not so rapid (30secs)" retransmission interval. > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of questions from this section that you > > > > > wanted to get discussed: > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > (1) Why is there no termination criteria specified? > > > > > > There is nothing new about Path and Resv messages getting > > > > > transmitted indefinitely (this is normal soft-state signaling > > > > > behavior). All that is being discussed in this section is how > these > > > > > transmissions get paced after the rapid retry limit is > reached. The > > > > > slower timer transmission will go on until either an ack is > received > > > > > (at which point the regular "refresh interval" comes into > play) or > > > > > the corresponding LSP instance state is torn down. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > (2) Why couldn't the regular refresh interval be used for > these > > > > > un-acked retransmissions? > > > > > > The primary goal of the retransmission is to eke out an > > > > > acknowledgement from the neighbor as quickly as you can. You > can use > > > > > the same value as the the regular refresh interval provided it > is > > > > > small enough (like in the case of the conventional refresh > interval > > > > > of 30 secs) . However, we are recommending the use of a "large > > > > > refresh interval" (20 mins) in the RI-RSVP technique -- we > can't > > > > > wait that long for retrying the transmission of an unacked > message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider a rudimentary state machine with the following > states > > > > > (assuming the defaults suggested in the Appendix of the draft): > > > > > > - first retransmit (exponential back off) > > > > > > - second retransmit (exponential back off) > > > > > > ... > > > > > > - seventh retransmit (exponential back off) > > > > > > - 30s retransmission > > > > > > - 20m refresh (regular refresh timer) > > > > > > > > > > > > At any point when the Ack is received, you transition to > the 20m > > > > > refresh state. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > Do these two responses adequately answer your questions? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > > > > > <ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Pavan, > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t see any changes in the new version that addresses > may > > > > > actual discuss on section 2.1.3 (now section 2.3). Can you > please > > > > > clarify? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 28.09.2017 um 05:45 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram > > > > > <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirja, Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review. We just posted a new revision > (-07) to > > > > > address the Gen-Art review comments. Please go through the new > diffs > > > > > (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- > scaling-rec-07 > > > > > <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- > scaling-rec-07>) > > > > > and let us know if additional changes are required. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, please go through the responses provided to the > other > > > > > review comments and let us know if there are still any > unanswered > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Mirja Kühlewind > > > > > <ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position > for > > > > > > > draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: Discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > <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-teas-rsvp-te- > scaling-rec/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- > scaling-rec/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > > > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm uncertain what section 2.1.3. actually recommends. My > > > > > understanding is that > > > > > > > it is recommend to still send retransmit some message > even if > > > > > the Rl was > > > > > > > reached and to that every 30s basically forever. First of > all I > > > > > think this > > > > > > > still needs a termination criteria when to stop to try to > > > > > retransmit finally. > > > > > > > And the I don't understand why this is needed, instead of > e.g. > > > > > just using a > > > > > > > larger Rl value? Can you please clarify! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > > > > > > COMMENT: > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I fully agree with the gan-art review (Thanks Elwyn!) and > > > > > Alvaro, that this > > > > > > > reads from time to time like a BCP but is actually a > extension > > > > > specification. I > > > > > > > would strongly recommend to apply the changes proposed by > the > > > > > gen-art review, > > > > > > > and there is also a very detailed list of nits/edits that > > > > > should probably be > > > > > > > applied. Please have a look at that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Teas mailing list > > > > > > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org> > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Teas mailing list > > > > > Teas@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Teas mailing list > > > Teas@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > > > > >
- [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-te… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Vishnu Pavan Beeram