On 11 April 2012 06:44, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) <[email protected]> wrote: > MB> Yes, it's really the communication mechanisms. Those details are > specified in the separate, standards-track, > draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit, which does impact interoperability. > Therefore I propose updating this sentence to clarify what is out of > scope. > "The mechanism for communicating the preferential forwarding status are > outside the scope of this document. "
Since you have the reference, is the reason you don't want to reference it that you don't want a downref? >>Section 4.1: "Non-revertive behavior MUST be supported, while >>revertive behavior is OPTIONAL." >> >>The reason for this requirement is non-obvious (at least to me). Some >>justification for it seems appropriate. > > MB> This is an operator requirement to ensure that the protocols developed > in support of PW redundancy at least support non-revertive operation as a > baseline. To implement a revertive behaviour, you will need to designate > one of the Pws So you had a choice: one mandatory, but which; or both mandatory. The WG chose non-revertive as the only mandatory option. I guess I was (obliquely) requesting that you provide motivation in the document, rather than just in response to my mail. >>Section 4.1: "Protection switchover can be triggered by the operator > MB> This requirement does have a protocol implication, both in terms of > the state machine and the ability to coordinate the state at both PEs in > the case > that a manual switchover is initiated from only one PE. The process that you describe doesn't address that requirement. That process ensures that operator intervention doesn't cause a failure by ensuring that the operator is unable to disable a redundant PW by removing the only active path. From the protocol perspective, you need a mechanism for signaling that a path is being administratively disabled. So: Requirement: Protection switchover can be initiated by either PE. Motivation: Operator intervention may be necessary to disable one part of a redundant PW. Product requirement: Operator intervention shall not be able to disable a PW by disabling the only available part of a redundant PW. (Excuse the sloppy terminology, it's been a while and I'm too lazy to get this right.) I don't have any real problem with your explanations, but it seems to me at least that it could be made clearer. Don't feel obligated to change on my accord alone, but there are value in being really clear about these requirements. --Martin _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
