Robert, thanks for your review. Huaimo, thanks for your responses. I think with the final change agreed between Huaimo and IANA, Section 8 should be good to go. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Robert Sparks <rjspa...@nostrum.com> wrote: > > I'm fine with the way you handled all my editorial suggestions. > > I'm still uncomfortable with what you are asking IANA to do. I think at this > point you need to have a conversation with your AD. > > As -14 is written, you are trying to put a value in a part of the class > names, class numbers, and class types registry at a codepoint that requires > "Standards Action" (Range 0-119). Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't > _think_ you can do that with an Experimental document. > > The language you have for the subregistry that you are _NOT_ asking IANA to > create at this time still implies that it exists as a registry (with > discussions of initial values and future assignment policies). Instead, I > think you need something like "During this experiment, the types of the new > subobjects are defined by the following table in this document. If the > concept proceeds to the standards track, these will move to an IANA > maintained registry" or some similar language. > > Again, get your ADs advice on what to do next here. > > RjS > > > On 2/28/18 8:18 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. >> Answers to them are inline below with prefix [HC]. >> Would you mind reviewing them to see if they address the issues? >> >> Best Regards, >> Huaimo >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:20 PM >> To: email@example.com >> Cc: i...@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org; >> draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection....@ietf.org >> Subject: Genart last call review of >> draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13 >> >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review result: Not Ready >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review >> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for >> the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call >> comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 2018-02-21 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-01 >> IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08 >> >> Summary: Not Ready for publication as an Experimental RFC >> >> I found this document hard to read. I encourage a significant editorial pass >> that focuses on presenting the core ideas early, and simplifies the language >> used throughout the document. >> [HC] We have presented the core ideas early and simplify the language used in >> the document accordingly. >> >> >> Major Issues: >> >> 1) The IANA considerations section is unclear. You ask IANA to put something >> in "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" at >> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml>. >> But there is no registry with that title on that page. (Nor is there a >> registry with a structure matching the row you are asking IANA to add.) Did >> you mean the registry at >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-4>? >> [HC] Yes. You are right. We have corrected it in the document. >> >> >> If so, the number you are suggesting is in a "Reserved for Private Use" >> range. >> If that _was_ your target, the structure of your requested record does not >> match the structure of the existing registry. Please clarify. >> [HC] We are considering a new C-Type under the existing Protection Class. >> The related text has be updated accordingly as below: >> Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to assign a new >> Class Type or C-Type under Class Number 37 and Class Name PROTECTION >> located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ >> rsvpparameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-39>, as follows: >> >> Value Description Reference >> ----- ----------- --------- >> 4 Type 4 INGRESS_PROTECTION This Document >> >> >> The instructions to IANA for what to do when this document moves to the >> standards track are inappropriate. You can say that you anticipate that the >> future document that moves the idea to the standard track expects to create >> a new registry under rsvp-te-parameters, but this document cannot instruct >> IANA to do so. >> [HC] We have revised the text according to your suggestion as below: >> It is anticipated that the future document that moves the idea to the >> standard track expects IANA to create and maintain a new registry under >> PROTECTION object class, Class Number 37, C-Type 4. Initial values for >> the registry are given below. The future assignments are to be made through >> IETF Review. >> >> >> 2) "After one approach is selected, the document SHOULD become proposed >> standard." is an innappropriate use of SHOULD, and doesn't correctly reflect >> the process that would be followed in any case. You could, instead, say >> "After one approach is selected, a document revising the ideas here to >> reflect that selection and any other items learned from the experiment is >> expected to be submitted for publication on the standards track." >> [HC] We have updated the text accordingly as below: >> After one approach is selected, the document will be revised >> to reflect that selection and any other items learned from >> the experiment. The revised document is expected to be submitted >> for publication on the standards track. >> >> >> 3) It is unclear until you get to section 5 (11 pages into the document) >> which elements provide and which elements consume the information in the >> proposed new object. The document is inconsistent about which messages the >> object can/should appear in. Moving the overview of behavior earlier in the >> document would help. >> Simplifying the description of that behavior will help more. Making the >> other sections consistent with what that overview describes is necessary. >> [HC] We have corrected the inconsistency and updated the document according >> to >> your suggestions. >> >> >> Minor Issues: >> >> a) It is not clear what the difference between source-detect and >> backup-source-detect really are (I agree with the comments in the rtgdir >> review on these sections). In section 2.1, where you say "reliably detect", >> do you really mean "verify"? The detection has already been done by the >> source. >> [HC] Yes. We have used "verify" instead of "reliably detect" and updated the >> text accordingly. We have added more details on source-detect and >> backup-source-detect as below: >> Note that one of the differences between Source-Detect and Backup- >> Source-Detect is: in the former, the backup ingress verifies the >> failure of the primary ingress slowly such as in seconds; in the >> latter, the backup ingress detects the failure fast such as in a few >> or tens of milliseconds. >> >> >> b) Section 4.1 is particularly hard to extract roles and responsibilities >> from. >> Calling out early which elements will use the object and in which messages >> will clarify the definition of behavior. Perhaps you should more carefully >> separate the definition of the object from normative statements about how >> the object gets used. >> [HC] We have added a brief description on the roles of the object as below: >> The primary ingress of a primary LSP sends the >> backup ingress this object in a PATH message. In this case, the >> object contains the information needed to set up ingress protection. >> The information includes: >> >> o Backup ingress IP address indicating the backup ingress, >> >> o Traffic Descriptor describing the traffic that the primary LSP >> transports, this traffic is imported into the backup LSP(s) on the >> backup ingress when the primary ingress fails, >> >> o Label and Routes indicating the first hops of the primary LSP, >> each of which is paired with its label, and >> >> o Desire options on ingress protection such as P2MP option >> indicating a desire to use a backup P2MP LSP to protect the >> primary ingress of a primary P2MP LSP. >> >> The backup ingress sends the primary ingress this object in a RESV >> message. In this case, the object contains the information about the >> status on the ingress protection. >> >> >> c) The document is vague about source behavior, though it requires behaviors >> of the source when it detects failure, and when a previously failed primary >> becomes available again. A clearer description of what you are requiring of >> the source, and what you are intentionally leaving unspecified would help. >> [HC] We have added the following text and updated the document accordingly. >> When the previously failed primary ingress of a primary LSP becomes available >> again and the primary LSP is recovered from its primary ingress, the source >> may switches the traffic to the primary ingress from the backup ingress. A >> operator may control the traffic switch through using a command on the >> source node after seeing that the primary LSP has recovered. >> >> >> d) The MUST in the first bullet of section 5.2 is unclear. As written it's >> an incorrect use of 2119. Are you trying to say that the primary ingress >> must know the IP address of the backup it wants to be used before it can use >> the INGRESS_PROTECTION object, or are you trying to say that if primary >> ingress doesn't know the address of the backup, it MUST NOT include a backup >> ingress address sub-object? >> [HC] It is the former. We have updated the text accordingly as below: >> o Backup Ingress Address: The primary ingress MUST know the IP >> address of the backup ingress it wants to be used before it can >> use the INGRESS_PROTECTION object. >> >> >> Nits and editorial comments: >> >> FRR is used in the title, but does not appear in the abstract. (The abstract >> could say more about what the document is about.) >> [HC] We have added more as follows: >> It extends the fast-reroute (FRR) protection for transit nodes >> of an LSP to the ingress node of the LSP. >> >> >> The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction is complex. >> Please break it apart into several sentences. >> [HC] We have rephrased it as below: >> To protect against the failure of the (primary) ingress node of a >> primary end to end P2MP (or P2P) TE LSP, a typical existing solution >> is to set up a secondary backup end to end P2MP (or P2P) TE LSP. >> The backup LSP is from a backup ingress node to backup egress nodes (or >> node). >> The backup ingress node is different from the primary ingress node. >> The backup egress nodes (or node) are (or is) different from the primary >> egress nodes (or node) of the primary LSP. >> >> >> In the introduction, please delete ", which are briefed as follows". The >> introduction to the issues can simply start "There are a number of issues in >> this solution:". >> [HC] We have revised the text according to your suggestion. >> >> >> At the second bullet in this list of issues, I suggest "configuration" >> instead of "configurations". >> [HC] We have changed it to "configuration". >> >> >> At the third bullet in this list of issues, what does "the BFD down" mean? >> [HC] We have updated the text as below: >> Any failure on the path of the BFD from an egress node >> to an ingress node may cause the BFD to indicate the failure >> of the ingress node. >> >> >> In section 3, I suggest replacing ", we call it is off-path" with "it is >> off-path". Please make a similar change to the sentence about on-path. In >> the third sentence, why do you say "configured or computed"? What does >> "computed" >> mean in this context? >> [HC] We have revised the related text in the document regarding to off-path >> and >> on-path. "configured or computed" says that a backup ingress is "configured" >> statically or "computed" automatically. >> "A backup ingress is computed" means >> that some software suggests a backup ingress automatically for the given >> information about the primary LSP. >> >> >> In the introduction to section 4, say _what_ the new object is backwards >> compatible with. >> [HC] We have removed "It is backward compatible." >> >> >> In section 4.1, it's unclear what "keeps it" means. Please try reworking >> this sentence without using "it". >> [HC] "keeps it" means records it (this flag). >> We have rephrased this sentence accordingly. >> >> >> It was not clear in section 4.1.1 that a backup would use the presence of >> the backup ingress IPv4 (or 6) sub-objects to discover that the primary >> wanted it to behave as a backup (as described in section 5.3). >> [HC] We have added some explanations. >> A node X is configured as a backup ingress on the primary ingress of an LSP. >> The node X does not know whether it is a backup ingress for any primary >> ingress >> of any LSP until the node X receives a PATH message with backup ingress >> sub-object for an LSP. >> >> >> In the 3rd paragraph of section 5.1.1, do you mean "efficient processing" >> where you say "efficient process"? >> [HC] Yes. We have revised it. >> >> >> The last paragraph of 5.1.1 does not help the document. "simple" compared to >> what? "less" compared to what? I suggest deleting the paragraph, or >> significantly expanding on the discussion. >> [HC] We have deleted it. >> >> >> At the first sentence of the last paragraph of 5.1.2, did you mean "required" >> instead of "requires"? >> [HC] Yes. We have changed it to required. >> >> >> At the second paragraph of 5.3, what are "administrative-colors"? >> [HC] They are administrative-groups. We have changed it to >> administrative-groups. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Genfirstname.lastname@example.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Genemail@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art