Hi Alia/Hannes, I support very much Alia's position here and would like to see node protection as part of base rlfa spec rather than dev-team HLD pushed as standard track document. Would be great to see input from all vendors to ensure interoperability.
Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 5:26 AM To: Hannes Gredler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Request for review - draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-01.txt 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
