[Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 30 August 2017 05:42 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2276D126B71; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 22:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150407177904.21566.4554462507948409747.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 22:42:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/dDaO719_JbNyfizP2E7YDJ4uJ4M>
Subject: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 05:42:59 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: 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-lsp-diversity/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Abstract should stand on its own; and, as such, needs to expand the "XRO" and "EXRS" acronyms (similar to the Introduction). For completeness, the definition of the "E" flag in section 2.1 probably needs to indicate that bit 0x08 is reserved, and MUST be set to 0 send, ignored on receipt. In section 3.2, on page 19, concerning the following text: If, subsequent to the initial signaling of a diverse LSP, the requested exclusion constraints for the diverse LSP are no longer satisfied and an alternative path for the diverse LSP that can satisfy those constraints exists, then: The phrasing "no longer satisfied" seems a bit incomplete, as (by my understanding) the constraints might not have been satisfied in the first place, if the L-bit was set in the initial request. I presume that, if this were to happen, you'd want to signal when a compliant path became available -- but the current text doesn't indicate that this is okay. Perhaps something like: "...are no longer satisfied (or, in the case that the initial request triggered a "Failed to satisfy Exclude Route" error subcode, remain unsatisfied), and an alternative path for..."
- [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-te… Adam Roach
- Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Dieter Beller
- Re: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Adam Roach