Thanks Alia, we’ll work out the gaps you mentioned and come back to you ASAP.
Ice. > On 01 May 2015, at 16:56, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > The IETF Last Call has expired without comment. I have not seen any > responses to > the two gaps that I mentioned in my AD review. > > If this draft is to be on the May 14 telechat, I need responses and resolved > draft by > May 7. > > Regards, > Alia > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > As is usual, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06. I don't > have any specific comments on the text(assuming that the RFC Editor will pick > up the typos I saw). However, I do see a couple gaps that I think would be > very useful to address. Feel free to convince me otherwise - but I think > these will make for a stronger RFC. > > It would have been nice to have a sentence or two in there that considered > the operational and troubleshooting aspects of MoFRR. For instance, can > mtrace work? Would lsp-ping fail to work on the secondary UMH because of > packets being dropped? > > I also recall a private discussion about the interaction of MoFRR and IGP > reconvergence after a failure and whether there can be relevant > micro-forwarding loops as a result. It would be very useful to have a > sentence or two in this draft that discusses whether micro-forwarding loops > are a concern that can either be frequently avoided because the secondary UMH > or that needs to be considered in modeling or.... > > I'd welcome discussion to clarify these two aspects while the draft is in > IETF Last Call. I'd like to have these resolved by May 7 so that it can be > on the IESG telechat on May 15. > > Thanks for the good work, > Alia > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
