jeff, i am happy to do this [rlfa single-spec for link and node-protection] unfortunately the current editor of the rlfa base spec is a bit <cough, cough> reluctant to incorporate changes for some reason.
IMO there are three roads to fix the problem: 1. keep rlfa, node protection seperate drafts 2. ask the current editor once more to incoporate the node-protection text as well as other comments from stephane (e.g. how to signal T-LDP preferred transport addresses) 3. ask WG-chairs to assign a new editor to the draft /hannes On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 06:35:54AM +0000, Jeff Tantsura wrote: | 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. | | From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> | Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 5:26 AM | To: Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> | Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" | <[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]> | 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
