Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 09 December 2016 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 AC95E12A09A; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:02:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 WTbzv1H_hc5t; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B3912961F; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F187524EB23; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:02:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1481248922; bh=PrcSKa/c+HYbqyU/6j7quz5oK74nqmaPg3LUZ9+G6U0=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=O84CNHYrQykiBKIeGCRbpHIEiWC4pzNRIem5sKI9wpqEOKOo2pkhMXnHxrzbDqmT2 n7FfMP920aLoEpFRsHfCiG37uPRH3MMkh6HYgmXm1HXDM7KTlP96WqOvsjJSXBG9ID KJFxaZkSzsVuei7nPaPFdPbwQygn+HaT5d6KrjGc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3104A24E0B4; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:02:02 -0800 (PST)
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <a703aa8f-3d9a-faa8-143b-470d09dd8c4b@joelhalpern.com> <56D46164-9225-4311-B3F2-8923C23AEF36@cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <a5551e0d-6353-9f0c-820b-1610ad9b6489@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:02:01 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56D46164-9225-4311-B3F2-8923C23AEF36@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/r_h094vPGKfx0FzLaSZfrq69hbc>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt.all@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 02:02:06 -0000

Those changes address my concerns.  The RFC Production Center Editors 
may choose to discuss the abstract further (it is still a bit longer 
than they usually like), but they may not.  I can live with it as you 
propose.

Thank you,
Joel

On 12/8/16 8:57 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Thank you for the detailed review of the document. Please see inline <RG> for replies..
>
>
>
>
> On 2016-11-23, 4:10 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
>> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
>> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
>> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
>> Directorate, please see
>> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>>
>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
>> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
>> discussion or by updating the draft.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-07.txt
>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>> Review Date: 23-November-2016
>> IETF LC End Date: N/A
>> Intended Status: Standards Track
>>
>> Summary: I have some moderate concerns about this document that I think
>> should be resolved before publication is approved.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Major:
>>     The use of SHOULD and MAY in section 4.1 seems to lead to a device
>> which ostensibly supports this document, but does the wrong things.
>>     First, with regard to the SHOULDs, in the absence of any indication
>> as to why it would not do this, it appears that the SHOULD is really
>> "MUST if the device supports this document" which is what MUST in a
>> document actually means.
>>     Section 4.2 first bullet says that a mid-point LSR "SHOULD" check
>> for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP Tree.  But if it doesn't, it is not
>> supporting this document.  As written, it could decide to ignore the
>> message, even though it claims to support this RFC.
>>     Looking at the handling when a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is
>> found, according to the document, the LSR MAY send the PathErr response.
>>  My assumption is that if it does not send the PathErr, it MUST
>> propagate the request.  If it does not do either one, the protocol does
>> not function.  It seems likely that if this is really intended to be
>> optional (MAY), the document would be improved my giving implementors
>> some hint as to when it is desirable or undesirable to send the message.
>>     Then in the third bullet, it is only a SHOULD to pass on the
>> request.  Thus, a device which supports this mechanism, but chooses not
>> to pass on the request, is compliant to this document while preventing
>> other devices from properly supporting the mechanism.
>
>
>
> <RG> Ok, how about following text in Section 4.1?
>
> -----------
> A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for one or more S2L
>    sub-LSP path(s) does the following upon receiving a Path message with
>    the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag set:
>
>    o  The mid-point LSR MUST check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree by
>       re-evaluating all S2L sub-LSP(s) that are expanded paths of the
>       loose next-hops of the P2MP-TE LSP.
>
>    o  If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the mid-point LSR MUST
>       send an RSVP PathErr with the Notify error code 25 defined in
>       [RFC3209] and sub-code "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists (value
>       TBA2)" defined in this document to the ingress node.  The mid-
>       point LSR, in turn, SHOULD NOT propagate the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-
>       evaluation Request" flag in the subsequent RSVP Path messages sent
>       downstream for the re-evaluated P2MP-TE LSP.
>
>    o  If no preferable tree for P2MP-TE LSP can be found, the mid-point
>       LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP
>       path(s) MUST propagate the request downstream by setting the
>       "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
>       Object of the RSVP Path message.
>
>    The sending of an RSVP PathErr with the Notify error code and
>    "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code to the ingress node
>    notifies the ingress node of the existence of a preferable P2MP-TE
>    LSP tree and upon receiving this PathErr, the ingress node MUST
>    trigger re-optimization of the LSP using the MBB method with a
>
> different LSP-ID.
> ---------------
>
>
>
>>
>> Minor:
>>     The abstract is much too long.  Much of the content of the abstract
>> belongs in the introduction.  Even teh second paragraph has too much
>> detail for an abstract.
>>
>> Editorial:
>>     In the last paragraph of the introduction, it says that this
>> document "proposes" solutions.  Given we are now in the position of
>> evaluating publication as a Proposed Standard, I would say that this
>> document "defines" solutions.
>>
>
>
> <RG> Ok, how about following Abstract?
>
> ----------
> Re-optimization of a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered
>    (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) may be triggered based on the need to
>    re-optimize an individual source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSP or a set of
>    S2L sub-LSPs, both using Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization method, or
>    the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree using the Make-Before-Break (MBB) method.
>     This document discusses the application of the existing mechanisms
>    for path re-optimization of loosely routed Point-to-Point (P2P) TE
>    LSPs to the P2MP-TE LSPs, identifies issues in doing so and defines
>    procedures to address them.  When re-optimizing a large number of S2L
>    sub-LSPs in a tree using the Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization method,
>    the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list may need to be semantically
>    fragmented.  This document defines the notion of a fragment
>    identifier to help recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct the
>    fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list.
> ----------
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh (for authors and contributors)
>
>
>
>>