[Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with DISCUSS)
"Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 15 June 2016 06:05 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 8003A12B03B; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.22.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160615060510.31650.96154.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:05:10 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ww8hOyYxU6P1gFN3C-2nWcUHUO8>
Cc: teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Subject: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 15 Jun 2016 06:05:10 -0000
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-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-srlg-collect/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In Section 5.1 when the SRLG collection request was contained in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and the RRO would become too big, a node drops the RRO from the Path message entirely. It is not clear what the next node that receives this SRLG collection request without an RRO would need to do as the spec only says that the RRO is inserted at the ingress. What is the expected behavior here on the subsequent node?
- Re: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-iet… Adrian Farrel
- [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-te… Suresh Krishnan