Re: [Teas] Comments on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-02

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <> Wed, 28 October 2015 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699381B4176; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pOHf3KXPYsT4; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4CC71B4175; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2789; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446000087; x=1447209687; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=OH0G6huTOYd+eOj+yObNsmkQwnlizS2foE7y2TTy5Us=; b=m/ls8SmRFv0aPWPCUumWm7IH16O/0LlHsN+C0OfNiiHoBArZu6/O7kC2 XbG+QvqMfqh8QM9lzC74Va/49jU+EnkyV/OHaRw4L226EfDw3mqUpekGx 02BJwov3R6klnFUCkYpMqqHohNWwb5+gffdKIcoOwIFbEgLFKu2wLHx7m U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,207,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="202491597"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2015 02:41:26 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9S2fPaI009673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:41:25 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:41:01 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:41:01 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
To: Lou Berger <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-02
Thread-Index: AQHRESGuwNYvUcb2YkCP0QpcXtprMJ6AQsgA
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:41:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Comments on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:41:28 -0000

Dear Lou- 

Thanks for the comments.

I agree, we will resolve your comments before the LC starts. More later.


Regards Š Zafar

On 10/27/15, 9:40 PM, "Lou Berger" <> wrote:

>	As part of Shepherding draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity I have reviewed
>this document and have some comments/questions.  Most of my
>comments/questions are editorial/minor in nature.
>First some general questions:
>- You define a number of "Notify Error" subcodes, but only sometimes say
>what the upstream node should do.  I think this needs to be covered in
>all cases. You might find RFC5710 a helpful reference.
>- Separate DI type values are defined for V4 and V6. As DI type is
>defined with address family specific subobject, there appears to be no
>technical basis for this.  Am I missing something, i.e., is there any
>reason to have AF specific values rather than just defining 1-3 in an AF
>family agnostic values?
>- Assuming you make the previous change you can also combine the
>respective object/field definitions along the lines of what you have in
>section 2.3. This will have better consistency for the objects and the
>I have the following editorial/minor comments:
>- ID nits, see
>, has 3 warnings that need to be addressed.
>Line numbers are from the idnits URL
>- Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 contain definitions of fields defined in other
>documents.  These should be replaced with simple references to the
>original definition rather than being repeated.  Interestingly, Section
>2.3 already does this.
>- Section 2.1.1, line 443.  Drop the word "border" as it applies to any
>node performing the expansion
>- Section 2.1.1.. lines 470/1.  Doesn't the "Note:" apply to all
>- Section 2.1.1., Section 2. PAS - as this document defines PAS there
>should be some guidance and/or guidelines for their creation and use.
>For example, one may conclude that PAS need to get propagated similar to
>SRLGs - but I'm sure this isn't the current intent.
>Section 2.2. What happens when a processing node encounters and unknown
>DI type?  This should be documented.
>Line 703: s/EN/a node/
>Lines 716,720.  As this is a procedures section shouldn't conformance
>language be used rather than "shall" and "do not need"?
>Line 821: S/PSR/Path_State_Removed flag (PSR) [RFC3473]
>Section 2.3.  Are the error subcodes the same for XRO and EXRS
>processing? I suspect not.
>I think that's it.  I think it makes sense to resolve these prior to
>last call so that folks can review a version that is slightly more ready
>for publication.