Re: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with COMMENT)

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 03:41 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 B5C7B135299; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 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, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bAF_63fWVnx6; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (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 D01B413292A; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id n69so467037ioi.5; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
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=9dxpjCGJypdq9kXz3AC9zzygEDSHc5GvPKFSSK+oe0w=; b=ulvl/L2orLdeGCoB38gv8LhI3tlxQ0UksPlVnxLsla6Z8l+RTQ3BZlUdcCv7lD1oUZ 5SjZGixlmw+Er9ZYyYwtb8foARZfSmLwM55nOnYr6bfplKrSz9yi8aNVk35NCCFkJL2/ VtSbxAP3W38BJXDy/uVxtDcqDIeYB6KVZrI24SY1xknkj5yVQPV2dF7WoerAzaoVezd/ qAeI/r4nUH/W6tiQu3V+5bPL/cqOho2rIA/ZFrS9ouAaIWMNqdu04/gWmStsGgA/EeLk ojTQUejlculbatwhNmftT18eSOWkIGDm7CQuweYjZETtKIaK4uwpwFDg9EpWf6ULDVh5 X8iw==
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=9dxpjCGJypdq9kXz3AC9zzygEDSHc5GvPKFSSK+oe0w=; b=Emip+glGdXe6uYhyVa3dhpNabzb2qM1qZhQ+H+br47NXTZAX2REeR8M5Wkvd4Sl9W2 e7ZX249dNUvn/iWW5Wqxrn1MNGBvP2bguEKnERnEqzzycYxUbX+yM66ScXx/oZhFGoTv 9NZDjv+Tnkkgb0ioxroU5BB2Wqxj+E0/oQu5hJUOwnL5NBxPA6CknYjM7V+vy/3d7TZg i3Q58c+FCMQ81J/dBL/X5urFBsNRVYMWLx4kmRb/MDwBQJnNGOrCCHu/n5xKWZiPH7lu 079Uq9lqHDUiogNT9Q2AizrDLFQAl6T4QH6CGmt0TyNMz3ZiW/hNvxFAfTduQPXboa5T m5Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWBLVAtwW0rrrI8pgig4wGGGYKA/4KUz5004cZJqyDCcIudieeK ptMuZfSTkoLaoNR56uB6BTaVkzY8bw7D4Fp8H3I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBNkcuv1/bA0/EZoNF7x8SoQ+WX+0O0TE2qAvoruyD5+aN5z6IPgGzQnB8ArypG/sK63xiNmy3p3GLBbEJvDgk=
X-Received: by 10.107.188.199 with SMTP id m190mr5386064iof.255.1506570093185; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.7.216 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <150640829065.13776.15807950505251240274.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150640829065.13776.15807950505251240274.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 23:41:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTtojfoexUxJqjGRQbBG2x6PnXA3vAn9gkN_48D9iO4iVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec@ietf.org, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05d4703bd110055a37af26"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Bs8nUSu4wkeL3b02lnXFnpbA4Xw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with 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: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:41:36 -0000

Spencer, 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)
and let us know if additional changes are required.

Please see inline for response to your comment (prefixed VPB).

Regards,
-Pavan



On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: 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-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm confused by this SHOULD.
>
>    The configurable periodic
>    retransmission interval for this slower timer SHOULD be less than the
>    regular refresh interval.
>
> Could you help me understand why someone would want to set the "slower
> timer"
> to be shorter than the regular refresh timer?
>

[VPB] This is because we are advocating the use of a large value for the
regular refresh interval (20 mins is the recommended default). On reaching
the rapid retry limit (rl) for Path/Resv, we need to keep periodically
retransmitting this message at a not so rapid rate (till an ack is
received). This retransmission interval cannot be as large as the regular
refresh interval and has to be reasonably smaller (30 secs is the
recommeded default).


>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>