Re: [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Pavan.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Yes, I meant RFC 2205 in a couple of places where I said RFC 2209. Oops!

I had a think about the points below and I believe there may still be 
things to be noted. My thoughts are inline below.

Cheers,
Elwyn

On 06/10/2017 22:23, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> Lou,
> Thanks for the response. I think that settles the "update" debate.
>
> Elwyn, Hi!
> Are you satisfied with my other responses? I'll submit a new revision 
> as agreed in my responses.
>
> Regards,
> -Pavan
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Lou Berger <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Pavan,
>
>     On 10/05/2017 07:44 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
>     > Lou, Hi!
>     >
>     > Responses inline (prefixed PB).
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > -Pavan
>     >
>     > From: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     > Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 6:41 AM
>     > To: "[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>"
>     > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>,
>     Elwyn Davies
>     > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     > Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>,
>     > "[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>"
>     > <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>,
>     > "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>, ietf
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     > Subject: Re: [Teas] Genart last call review of
>     > draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06
>     >
>     > Hi Pavan,
>     >
>     > WRT if this document updates rfc2961:
>     >
>     > I don't have a strong opinion on or objection to this document
>     updating
>     > rfc2961.  To have this document be an update, I do think we and
>     it need
>     > to be clear on what exactly is being updated in 2961. After
>     rereading
>     > both it's unclear to me what you see is being updated. As best I can
>     > see, this document basically relates to 2961 in that it says (a)
>     use the
>     > reliable message delivery defined in 2961 and (b) restates that 2205
>     > refresh processing of path and resv messages still applies after
>     a rapid
>     > retry period expires and (c) sending acks moves from recommended to
>     > required.
>     >
>     > What did I miss?
>     >
>     > FWIW I think (a) and (c) are requirements of this document not
>     2961 and
>     > (b) seems like an informative statement that the basic refresh
>     > processing rules of rfc2205 still apply.
>     >
>     > --
>     > [PB] This is all about how we interpret (b). RFC2961 doesn’t
>     explicitly
>     > state what happens the rapid retry period expires. The current draft
>     > explains what needs to be done. Does this warrant an official
>     update to
>     > RFC2961?
>
>     The RFC doesn't generally review unmodified RFC2205 processing,
>     nor has
>     that been the normal practice when defining RSVP extensions.  An
>     informative statement in this draft certainly would do no harm if you
>     feel that it is needed, but I don't think it raises to the level of an
>     update.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Lou
>
>
>     > —
>     >
>     > Thanks
>     > Lou
>     >
>     > On October 1, 2017 9:14:15 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Elwyn, Hi!
>     >>
>     >> Please see inline for responses.
>     >>
>     >> Regards,
>     >> -Pavan
>     >>
>     >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Elwyn Davies
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     wrote:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     Hi, Pavan.
>     >>
>     >>     I've checked through the changes in -07 and I think all is
>     good as
>     >>     regards fixing the 'major issue', restucturing s2 and
>     fixing the
>     >>     nits - thanks.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] Great!
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     Looking at the IESG comments I think you have covered most of
>     >>     them  except it would be good to put a pointer to Appendix
>     A into
>     >>     the intro of s2.
>     >>
>     >>     With reference to Appendix A(d), it would be helpful to
>     s/periodic
>     >>     retransmission interval/Periodic Retransmission Interval/ and
>     >>     possibly give it a name (Rpri or some such)  in s2.3 and
>     Appendix
>     >>     A(d).  Adding the name of the interval after "retransmission of
>     >>     these on a slower timer" migt mak it clearer also.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] Ok. We'll add a pointer to the Appendix and also find a
>     short
>     >> form for the periodic retransmission interval.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     However,  I think you still need to address all three of
>     the minor
>     >>     issues:
>     >>     - Capability object:  A 'basic' implementation of RFC
>     2209/RFC3209
>     >>     will not include the RFC5063 extensions.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] I think you meant RFC2205 and not RFC2209.
>     >>
>     >>     I think you should therefore make it explicit that a
>     prerequisite
>     >>     for your extensions is an implementation of the Capability
>     object
>     >>     as specified in RFC5063 (my proposal for s3) , making it clear
>     >>     that this does not require any of the other functionality
>     of RFC
>     >>     5063, especially no support for the S bit in the Capabilities.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] I'm not really sure that "Capability Object" needs a
>     separate
>     >> prerequisite section. I'll let the Document-Shepherd and our AD
>     take a
>     >> call on this. Please note that the document also talks about using
>     >> Node-ID hellos from RFC4558. Would "Node-Hellos/RFC4558" also then
>     >> need a separate prerequisite section? We added a separate
>     section for
>     >> RFC2961 because there is a need to explicitly clarify the usage of
>     >> certain 2961 procedures. With "Capability Object" and "Node
>     Hellos",
>     >> there isn't anything (IMHO) that needs to be explicitly clarified.
>
I think it would be useful to prospective implementors to have a very 
short statement either at the end of s1 or as a new section to say that 
you need to have the Capability Object implemented as this is not 
necessarily in a basic RSVP  implementation or RSVP-TE implementation.  
Since this draft is about RSVP-TE deployments (RFC 3209) you get 
Node-Hellos automatically (and the RFC 4558 clarification is mentioned) 
and doesn't need to be called out explicitly.
>
>     We
>     >> could just add a statement in Section 4.1 saying that you don't
>     need
>     >> to set any other flags. Would that address your concern about the
>     >> ambiguity regarding the "Graceful Restart" bits?
>     >>
>     >> OLD
>     >>    An implementation supporting the RI-RSVP technique
>     >> MUST set a new
>     >>    flag "RI-RSVP Capable" in the CAPABILITY object signaled in
>     Hello
>     >>    messages.
>     >> NEW
>     >>
>     >>  An implementation supporting the RI-RSVP technique MUST set a new
>     >>    flag "RI-RSVP Capable" in the CAPABILITY object signaled in
>     Hello
>     >>    messages. This MAY be the only flag set in the object.
>     >>
>
That sounds fine.
>
>     >>
>     >>     -  Your response regarding what happens if a peer initially
>     >>     acknowledges that it supports the new capabilities by
>     setting the
>     >>     I/F bits in the Capability and sends some messages with the
>     >>     Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit set, but then stops setting the
>     >>     Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit doesn't really address the
>     problem.
>     >>      Would this mean that the receiver should assume that the
>     peer can
>     >>     no longer support the extensions?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] Yes.
>     >>
>     >>     Is this a permanent state or could the peer start setting the
>     >>     Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit again and restore initial
>     >>     functionality - or should this just not be allowed.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] The peer can set the bit again and restore the
>     functionality.
>     >>
>     >>     I think you need to think through what happes in the various
>     >>     possible cases and explain what an implementation should do in
>     >>     each case.
>
What seems to be missing is what should be done if either or both of the 
two capabilities are active on the peer or some of its LSPs when the  
Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit is cleared in a message (which I think 
could be any message from the peer).  If I understand correctly it is 
possible that RI-RSVP might have to be switched off and depending on 
where the RI-RSVP process had got to in terms of sending repeat PATH 
messages, it might be necessary to revert to standard refreshing 
procedures from part way through the revised procedure - I think you 
probably need to be clear about what you would do in terms of where to 
enter the default refresh procedure and whether this means the refresh 
interval should revert to a lower value.   I am not sure whether 
immediately unthrottling the flow control would be desirable either!
>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] There are only two possibilities -- Is the functionality
>     >> enabled on the peer or is it not? If the functionality is
>     enabled, the
>     >> implementation does everything that is specified as required
>     for the
>     >> given technique. If it is not enabled, then the implementation
>     doesn't
>     >> employ the technique and just behaves like it does today. We'll try
>     >> and add some text to make this obvious.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     - So, I have done my homework and checked back on what happens
>     >>     when there is no acknowledgement of refreshes. The relevant
>     >>     parameter is the cleanup time.  However, this leaves us with a
>     >>     problem.. the cleanup time is typically set as a multiple
>     of the
>     >>     refresh interval (9 times seems to be the default) - indeed
>     I see
>     >>     that the interface configuration on a Juniper router (!)
>     actually
>     >>     sets it by asking for the multiple rather than an absolute
>     value.
>     >>     Wth the new dispensation in ths document, there are two time
>     >>     periods involved:  I think you do need to respecify how to
>     >>     calculate a sensible cleanup interval, and note that the
>     >>     retransmissions will then halt after this interval.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] I think you are confusing this with the "setup retry" timer
>     >> (which comes into play when you signal the PATH setup of an LSP
>     >> instance and don't get a RESV back). Please go through
>     >>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ravisingh-teas-rsvp-setup-retry-01
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ravisingh-teas-rsvp-setup-retry-01>
>     >>
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dravisingh-2Dteas-2Drsvp-2Dsetup-2Dretry-2D01&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=XXwwGPXiCQhVIgNDbiHxKEuHs1fkmMoiGQsHcQ33ZQE&e=
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dravisingh-2Dteas-2Drsvp-2Dsetup-2Dretry-2D01&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=XXwwGPXiCQhVIgNDbiHxKEuHs1fkmMoiGQsHcQ33ZQE&e=>>
>     >> for a detailed account of setup retry timer, issues associated
>     with it
>     >> and recommended practices. The staged retransmission (Section 2.3)
>     >> that comes into play when there is no ACK is different from
>     what you
>     >> are alluding to -- it is meant for any message seeking ACK (not
>     just
>     >> PATH). This is very specific to the exponential back-off procedure
>     >> discussed in Section 6 of RFC2961. As per RFC2961, the rapid
>     >> retransmissions stop after we reach a certain retry limit. In
>     Section
>     >> 2.3, we are clarifying what needs to be done after this Retry
>     limit is
>     >> reached --- the recommendation is to fall back on a not so rapid
>     >> retransmission interval. As a I said in my previous email, this
>     needs
>     >> to be done until either an ACK is received or the corresponding
>     state
>     >> is torn down.
>
No.  I am not talking about the setup-retry timer.  I was thinking about 
the L value (the local state lifetime) as discussed in Section 3.7 of 
RFC 2205.  This is usually defined in terms of a multiple of the refresh 
timer - s3 of the draft suggests that the refresh timer be configured to 
20 minutes making the L value at least an hour in the default case.  
This would mean the slower refresh retries would go on for an hour which 
seems excessive.  I suspect you need to specify an alternative algorithm 
for setting L.
>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     Does this last modification constitute an update of RFC
>     2209?  I
>     >>     am not sure -consult your AD!
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] RFC2209 is an informational document that provides
>     guidance on
>     >> the various data-models and procedures needed for an
>     implementation to
>     >> be RFC2205 compliant. Most of the content in RFC2209 is outdated
>     >> (imho). No one has had the inclination over the years to update
>     this
>     >> and we don't intend to do this either.
>     >>
>     >> [Pavan] Reading through the various questions/comments from the
>     IESG,
>     >> I'm convinced that this document needs to formally update RFC2961.
>     >> We'll go ahead and do that if the shepherd and our AD have no
>     objections.
>
This has been addressed in your discussions with Lou.
>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     Regards,
>     >>     Elwyn
>     >>
>     >>     Sent from Samsung tablet.
>     >>
>     >>     -------- Original message --------
>     >>     From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     >>     Date: 28/09/2017 03:48 (GMT+00:00)
>     >>     To: Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     >>     Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     >> [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>     <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, ietf
>     >>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >>     Subject: Re: [Teas] Genart last call review of
>     >>     draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06
>     >>
>     >>     Elwyn, Hi!
>     >>
>     >>     Thanks for the detailed review and the text suggestions. We
>     just
>     >>     posted a new revision (-07) to address the concerns listed
>     below.
>     >>     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>
>     >>   
>      <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dteas-2Drsvp-2Dte-2Dscaling-2Drec-2D07&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=xuSuAQ7BlTuE-ue-3t5WtAzMMA9cBuBNzk4iM7yoTHs&e=
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dteas-2Drsvp-2Dte-2Dscaling-2Drec-2D07&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=xuSuAQ7BlTuE-ue-3t5WtAzMMA9cBuBNzk4iM7yoTHs&e=>>)
>     >>     and let us know if additional changes are required.
>     >>
>     >>     Please see inline for further responses (prefixed VPB).
>     >>
>     >>     Regards,
>     >>     -Pavan
>     >>
>     >>     On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Elwyn Davies
>     >>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>         Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>     >>         Review result: Not Ready
>     >>
>     >>         I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The
>     General
>     >>         Area
>     >>         Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
>     processed
>     >>         by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these
>     comments just
>     >>         like any other last call comments.
>     >>
>     >>         For more information, please see the FAQ at
>     >>
>     >>         <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq
>     <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>
>     >>       
>      <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=7EVfFwYHvGi6M8T035d7tGPQVwgnEJq_TzB3RddVx2Q&e=
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=7EVfFwYHvGi6M8T035d7tGPQVwgnEJq_TzB3RddVx2Q&e=>>>.
>     >>
>     >>         Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06
>     >>         Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>     >>         Review Date: 2017-09-22
>     >>         IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-22
>     >>         IESG Telechat date: 2017-09-28
>     >>
>     >>         Summary: Not ready, primarily because the title and
>     >>         presentation give the
>     >>         impression that the content is really a BCP when it isn't.
>     >>         This conceals the
>     >>         considerable amount of tweaking of RFC 2961
>     functionality and
>     >>         addition of new
>     >>         RSVP Capabilities described in the document.  There are
>     also a
>     >>         couple of minor
>     >>         issues that need to be sorted out.
>     >>
>     >>         Major issues:
>     >>         Title and way proposals are presented: The document defines
>     >>         two new
>     >>         'capabilities' for RSVP-TE and is indeed (as specified
>     in the
>     >>         document header)
>     >>         correctly intended for Standards Track status.  However the
>     >>         title and the whole
>     >>         of the meat of the document in Section 2 presents the
>     proposals as
>     >>         'recommendations' which says to me that I am expecting
>     a BCP
>     >>         where a profile of
>     >>         available options from existing standards is recommended as
>     >>         the best choice for
>     >>         implementation and deployment.  In my opinion, the
>     title would
>     >>         be better as
>     >>         something like "Additional Capabilities Designed to Improve
>     >>         the Scalability of
>     >>         RSVP-TE Deployments".  Whilst the proposals are based
>     on the
>     >>         techniques in RFC
>     >>         2961, the document *requires* the implementor to conform to
>     >>         rules that were
>     >>         optional and constrains configurable values to different
>     >>         ranges in order to be
>     >>         able to deliver the capabilities defined in the document as
>     >>         well as defining
>     >>         new RSVP extensions modifying some of the behaviour
>     defined in
>     >>         RFC 2961.  Thus
>     >>         although some of the rules could be met by choosing
>     particular
>     >>         values within
>     >>         the RFC 2961 set, the use of MUST, tweaking of
>     functionality
>     >>         and variation of
>     >>         ranges takes it well beyond a set of recommendations
>     for RFC
>     >>         2961 options
>     >>         selections.  In view of this Section 1 needs to be
>     written as
>     >>         an introduction
>     >>         to the definitions of the new capabilities rather than
>     >>         advocacy for selection
>     >>         of RFC 2961 options and the implication that the techniques
>     >>         mentioned in the
>     >>         last paragraph of s1 are just a matter of selecting a
>     profile
>     >>         of option values.
>     >>          In actuality new protocol values are introduced and
>     ss2.2 and
>     >>         2.3 define novel
>     >>         extensions to RSVP beyond what is available for RFC
>     2961 and
>     >>         requiring
>     >>         modification to basic RFC 2961 functionality..
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] We changed the title to "Techniques to Improve the
>     >>     Scalability of RSVP-TE Deployments". We also tweaked the
>     text in
>     >>     the introduction section as suggested. Please see if the
>     new set
>     >>     of diffs address the comment above.
>     >>
>     >>         Minor issues:
>     >>         Interaction with RFC 5063:  The document does not
>     explicitly
>     >>         state that an
>     >>         implementation would need to support (at least) the extra
>     >>         capability obect
>     >>         defined in s4.2 of RFC 5063.  Some words about interaction
>     >>         with RFC 5063 are
>     >>         probably required in that s4.2.1 of RFC 5063 rather assumes
>     >>         that if there is a
>     >>         capability object, by default its S bit will be set.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] The CAPABILITY object in RFC5063 is meant for generic use
>     >>     and can be used even when there are no Graceful Restart
>     extensions
>     >>     in play (even when no GR flags are set). As far as we can tell,
>     >>     there is nothing in RFC5063 that precludes this. We added a
>     >>     reference to RFC5063 when the new Capability flags are
>     introduced.
>     >>     Would this be sufficient to address this concern?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         Behaviour if a node stops setting Refresh-Reduction-Capable
>     >>         bit:  The last para
>     >>         of s2 in RFC 2961 discusses behaviour if a node stops
>     setting
>     >>         this bit in
>     >>         messages.  What would happen with the extensions defined in
>     >>         this document if
>     >>         this happened while either of the extensions is in
>     use?  As a
>     >>         matter of
>     >>         interest, if a peer offers the capabilities defined in this
>     >>         draft, is it
>     >>         possible or sensible for it to stop setting the
>     >>         Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit
>     >>         without stopping offering the extensions?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB]  If a peer sets the I or F bit in the CAPABILITY
>     object but
>     >>     does not set the Refresh-Reduction-capable bit, then the
>     >>     corresponding functionality ("RI-RSVP" or "Per-Peer
>     Flow-Control")
>     >>     is not activated for that peer. In other words, resetting the
>     >>     Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit immediately makes the node
>     incapable
>     >>     of supporting the two capabilities discussed in this document.
>     >>     This is covered in Sections 3.1 and 4.1 ( -07 version).
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.1.3, para 2: As specified, it appears that the 'slower
>     >>         timer' transmission
>     >>         of Path and Resv messages can go on indefinitely if no ack
>     >>         arrives.  What puts
>     >>         an end to this repetition?  [It may be that I have
>     forgotten
>     >>         how basic RSVP
>     >>         works, but since this is altering the behaviour it would be
>     >>         good to explain how
>     >>         it terminates, and whether this requires any additional
>     >>         modification to timers.]
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB]  There is nothing new about Path and Resv messages
>     getting
>     >>     transmitted indefinitely (this is normal soft-state signaling
>     >>     behavior) -- all that this section does is discuss how these
>     >>     transmissions are paced in the absence of an ack. 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.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         Nits/editorial comments:
>     >>         Abstract: RSVP-TE is not a 'well-known' abbreviation:
>     >>         s/RSVP-TE/RSVP Traffic
>     >>         Engineering (RSVP-TE)/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         Abstract and s1, first para:  This para is not future
>     proof.
>     >>         Suggest:
>     >>         OLD:
>     >>            The scale at which RSVP-TE [RFC3209] Label Switched
>     Paths
>     >>         (LSPs) get
>     >>            deployed is growing continually and there is
>     considerable
>     >>         onus on
>     >>            RSVP-TE implementations across the board to keep up
>     with this
>     >>            increasing demand in scale.
>     >>         NEW:
>     >>            At the time of writing, networks which utilise RSVP
>     Traffic
>     >>         Engineering
>     >>            (RSVP-TE) [RFC3209] Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are
>     >>         encountering limitations
>     >>            in the ability of implementations to support the
>     growth in
>     >>         the number of LSPs
>     >>            deployed.  This document defines two additional RSVP-TE
>     >>         extensions that
>     >>            are intended to reduce the number of messages needed to
>     >>         maintain RSVP-TE
>     >>            soft state in routers and hence allow implementations to
>     >>         support larger
>     >>            scale deployments.
>     >>         ENDS
>     >>         Note:  Omit reference from Abstract.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>         s1, para 2: s/under certain/beyond a certain/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s1, para 3: s/makes a set of concrete implementation
>     >>         recommendations/defines
>     >>         two extensions/; s/- push higher/by increasing/; s/maintain
>     >>         LSP state./maintain
>     >>         LSP state by reducing the number of messages needed./
>     >>
>     >>         Abstract, para 2 and s1, last para: [Omit reference from
>     >>         Abstract]
>     >>         OLD:
>     >>            This document advocates the use of a couple of
>     techniques -
>     >>         "Refresh-
>     >>            Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP)" and "Per-Peer
>     >>         Flow-Control" -
>     >>            for significantly cutting down the amount of
>     processing cycles
>     >>            required to maintain LSP state.
>     >>         NEW:
>     >>            This document defines two RSVP Capabilities
>     [RFC5063] "Refresh-
>     >>            Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP)" and "Per-Peer
>     >>         Flow-Control"
>     >>            that will cut down the number of messsages and
>     processing
>     >>         cycles
>     >>            required to maintain LSP state.
>     >>         ENDS
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s1, last para: Add new penultimate sentence:
>     >>            Note that the "Per-Peer Flow-Control" capability
>     requires
>     >>         the "RI-RSVP"
>     >>            capability as a prerequisite.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s1, last para: s/RECOMMENDED/recommended/ - this isn't a
>     >>         recommendation about
>     >>         the protocol on the wire.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         Subdivision of s2:  The issues regarding the nature of the
>     >>         document would be
>     >>         helped by altering s2 into four top level sections,
>     thus: s2:
>     >>         Requirement for
>     >>         RFC 2961 Refresh Overhead Reduction Support and Specific
>     >>         Option Choices (from
>     >>         s2.1) s3: Requirement for RFC 5063 Capability Object
>     support
>     >>         (see Minor Issues
>     >>         above) s4: Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP Capability
>     (from
>     >>         s2.3) s5:
>     >>         Per-Peer RSVP Flow Control Capability (from s2.4)
>     Subsequent
>     >>         major sections
>     >>         then renumbered as s6 onwards. References to s2.x will
>     need to
>     >>         be updated
>     >>         throughout.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] We subdivided s2 into 3 top level sections. We did
>     not add a
>     >>     separate section for discussing RFC5063 Capability Object
>     support.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.1 (would be introduction of new s2):
>     >>         OLD:
>     >>            The implementation recommendations discussed in this
>     >>         section are
>     >>            based on the proposals made in [RFC2961] and act as
>     >>         prerequisites for
>     >>            implementing the techniques discussed in Sections
>     2.2 and 2.3.
>     >>
>     >>         NEW:
>     >>            The Capabilities defined in Sections 4 and 5 of this
>     >>         document are based on
>     >>            proposals made in [RFC2961]. Implementations of these
>     >>         Capabilities will
>     >>            need to support the RSVP messages and techniques
>     defined in
>     >>         [RFC2961] as set
>     >>            out in Section 2.1 [was 2.1.1] with
>     >>            some minor modifications and alterations to recommended
>     >>         time intervals and
>     >>            iteration counts as defined in the remainder of this
>     section.
>     >>         ENDS
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>         s2.1.1, title and para 1 [will be s2.1]:
>     >>         OLD:
>     >>         2.1.1.  Basic Prerequisites
>     >>
>     >>            An implementation that supports the techniques
>     discussed in
>     >>         Sections
>     >>            2.2 and 2.3 must meet certain basic prerequisites.
>     >>         NEW:
>     >>         2.1.  Required Functionality from RFC 2961 to be
>     Implemented
>     >>
>     >>            An implementation that supports the capabiities
>     discussed
>     >>         in Sections
>     >>            4 and 5 must provide a large subset of the functionality
>     >>         described
>     >>            in [RFC2961] as follows:
>     >>         ENDS
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.1.2, para 2 [will be s2.2]: s/techniques discussed in
>     >>         Sections 2.2 and
>     >>         2.3/Capabilities defined in Sections 4 and 5/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.1.2, para 2: s/MESSAGE ID/MESSAGE_ID/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.2, para 1: s/improvement on transmission
>     >>         overhead/improvement of
>     >>         transmission overhead/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.2, para 1: s/proposes sufficient
>     recommendations/sets out
>     >>         additional
>     >>         requirements/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.2, last bullet: Add a reference to the proposed new
>     Section
>     >>         3 that discusses
>     >>         the Capability object.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Added a direct reference to RFC5063
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.2.1, last para: s/set Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit in
>     >>         common header/set the
>     >>         Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit in the common header/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.3, para 1: s/set of recommendations/functionality/;
>     >>         s/provide/provides/;
>     >>         s/RSVP-TE control plane congestion/a significant portion of
>     >>         the RSVP-TE control
>     >>         message load/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         s2.3.2: s/MESSAGE ID/MESSAGE_ID/
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     [VPB] Fixed in -07
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         _______________________________________________
>     >>         Teas mailing list
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
>     >>       
>      <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=g6wdiVKa0BcV5n4De8h3NjtO0hRGaFGruAncUJvpq_k&e=
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=k7e-cloxf90XW9b_KRgpp7fxJRT4Q-f-_Nor0jTe8fg&s=g6wdiVKa0BcV5n4De8h3NjtO0hRGaFGruAncUJvpq_k&e=>>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>
>