IETF Logo Mail Archive

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> Thu, 28 September 2017 03:45 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 9BB3A13529D; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 rL9Jo1v_DNBV; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (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 9CA45132F3F; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id c195so704185itb.1; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:45:26 -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=PKgHPVDUw8dwExhsj8fJm97kNmev4Tl4eRu7qXz6+ds=; b=CQyXCCHQoDosh+6vKMCAfUyZ9NDASBirVActobV6lDq3bNd3QDh2OqXA1erkIJuBmH 9JVbRQM0bQGA4IoFiQr2rive7AzYgNdNbLwT05oQLMV8b1U5gC04P1eCJ75ehSWPxlUv lz79TnxmppR0qMXWe1QOodNsoYTnCI3tgqcdyORNnRMqqnHawrQf1PBUa9YBfPZYh4L+ 5+Ofh+EgLcgCTiLlqYQMxD4dy06gvdVcrXreaXufzdBomSDKKkFptia+t6GVR1EF7K8n k+TBzmDtde3BmLoHRuAkMy8f1BLSc198q8ykAsPDyotmXSbW8aW28NWCeQ72jSbuoTwB FpBA==
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=PKgHPVDUw8dwExhsj8fJm97kNmev4Tl4eRu7qXz6+ds=; b=uipR8NmVa/vsNBTQ035G66JRv2cZvuojI1QkVWbV90h81AeOAxisQNpdJaKq43fQqw vA3ceL7D6s8F1+b5q9AK8sYaj8LMQjCsxf7mKZXMlbzqk5+kFRE3fVNIkI/D0YRb9MhO qX9DGp+0YH+v/qWsnfteEgI0cUAA3RG0D6wI2SL8kYHvudX1vOZONB7ayKttPEHFYhiT 2AVf90WjYlNnsItXYcVobfmfi+S/dgr/0GCq8yLU/r/C7oB4+toWflhTMYspIOlTT/0T unJdmPhyJjmNRJdZ8A5u71DLSIM53CJqkJ1ouCRfWHmljQYKVOfH5HKtTS27gR5rpVDa Hh4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaV+UbMDbNunHiVB3lClx5F/op/UmUpzci7I82GBbS2356FE7yZc cvbg68Fp+qP/Ezn0Pn6kIW6FP1bUeSMG5clXkWE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QD7c4z/44PTrq8SdTq1XanOELngPOwwXC96j04I66u9jQjXWh/JTv2AbkUV+V3c9mRcy8BU8ftV5pVDHSGm4FI=
X-Received: by 10.36.177.9 with SMTP id o9mr1956872itf.44.1506570325946; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.7.216 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <150644890311.20830.6212136664552694640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150644890311.20830.6212136664552694640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 23:45:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTtqT9Ojs8Ed8fwW3FCLGVaJMTgCxsonH1Gxe-H7Q85orA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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="089e08230ea41b76eb055a37bda3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/d2rwtt_44ZwbB6C2sD7eK1iTIBA>
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: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:45:29 -0000

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email