It would be excellent to see progress on the Remote LFA draft and on
merging at least the two drafts that describe how to do node-protection for
Remote LFA before the Vancouver IETF.

Alia


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> wrote:

> hi jeff,
>
> the single biggest problem with draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa
> is that it leaves a lot of ambiguity how to implement certain
> functionality - node-protection, manageability among them.
>
> 'the right thing'(™)  would be to fix the rlfa spec,
> which somehow seems not possible, so it remains
> in the state which it is now … what i call 'underspecified'.
>
> draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection is a contribution
> coming from a dev-team which had to implement this for
> OSPF and IS-IS and make it work altogether.
>
> we got the impression that customers want to use both
> node-protection *and* manageability together and as such
> you need to do things a certain way which is described in
> the draft. IMO thats a bit more than just
> 'implementation details' but rather a guidance
> how to get this right. therefore the intended status is
> 'proposed standard'.
>
> /hannes
>
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Question to the authors of the draft about their intentions, obviously
> the
> > basic node protection equation(D_opt(Npq, Dst) < D_opt(Npq, Np) +
> > Distance_opt(Np, Dst)) is correct, however the rest is more or less
> > implementation details.
> > So if the authors would like to share the details about their
> > implementation should not the Intended Status be Informational?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone know whether the draft deal will be treated in the IETF
> 88?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Rogerio Mariano
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>
> http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/Request-for-review-draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa
> >>>> -
> >>>> n
> >>>> ode-protection-01-txt-tp375714p386321.html
> >>>> Sent from the IETF - Rtgwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> rtgwg mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to