Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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>:
> 
> 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) 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> 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
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 