Hi Stephane, On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alia, > > > > Many thanks for your review, I will address them shortly and publish a new > version. > > Some comments inline. > > Sounds good. > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Stephane > > > > *From:* rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas > *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 23:44 > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability > > > > As is customary, I have done my AD Review of this draft. Thank you for a > clearly written and well thought out draft. > > I do have some minor concerns, as below, but I am also letting this draft > move to IETF Last Call while they are addressed. I will need an updated > draft by June 18, so the draft can go on the IESG telechat on June 25. > > Minor comments: > > 0) This draft has 6 authors. Please prune down to 5 or assign an > editor or two. > > [SLI] Everyone listed worked hardly on the text as well as on > specifications, I will put myself as editor to keep everyone J. > > We can talk about this. Having 6 authors/editors is an exception that I would have to approve. > 1) In section 6.2.1, it says " When selecting the best alternate, the > selection algorithm MUST > consider all available alternates (connected or tunnel). Especially, > computation of PQ set ([I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]) SHOULD be > performed before best alternate selection." > > Instead of "Especially" with a SHOULD - which implies that Remote > LFA should always be run, could you change it to: "For example with Remote > LFA, computation of PQ set ...."? I think the manageability concerns in > this document are useful regardless of the fast-reroute technology and this > is only a good example of an implementation ordering that is important. > > [SLI] Fixed. > > 2) In 6.2.4.1: " attributes from PLR to alternate path are retrieved > from the > interface connected to the alternate." > > There can be multiple interfaces. The correct behavior (union or > evaluate once per different interface) should be clearly described. The > similar issue exists for the alternate path and in 6.2.4.2, but there may > be more or less freedom about controlling which path is taken. > > [SLI] I need to discuss with my co authors on that. > Yes, I think this one is a non-trivial. It's made more amusing by the probability of multiple paths taken at downstream hops. I can see being conservative there but able to pick for the first hop. 3) In Sec 6.2.6, "Maintain a preference system between alternates based > on number of > > SRLG violations : more violations = less preference." The way that > I've seen SRLGs used as a soft restriction is by giving each SRLG a value. > Then one can prefer the lower sum. This allows different consideration and > valuation of the SRLGs. Of course, this can fall back to each SRLG has a > value of 1. Could you please loosen the assumption here about equally > valuing the SRLGs? I'd prefer to see both alternatives allowed - but that > is <no-hat>technical opinion</no-hat> whereas loosening the assumption is > about not accidentally forcing more limited behavior and removing the > ability to implement more sophisticated mechanisms. > > [SLI] Right, here is a new text proposal which is more open: > > “ > > When SRLG protection is computed, and implementation SHOULD permit to : > > <list style="symbols"> > > <t>Exclude alternates > violating SRLG.</t> > > <t>Maintain a preference > system between alternates based on SRLG violations. How the preference > system is implemented is out of scope of this document but here are few > examples : > > <list style="symbols"> > > <t>Preference based on > number of violation. In this case : the more violation = the less > preferred.</t> > > <t>Preference based on > violation cost. In this case, each SRLG violation has an associated cost. > The lower violation cost sum is preferred.</t> > > </list>” > Looks good. > The path considerations mentioned in (2) still apply. > 4) In Sec 6.2.7, you might be interested in the link/node-attribute drafts > that are being finished. > > [SLI] Could you give me the pointers of drafts you are thinking about ? > You have the ISIS one for node admin tags. I was also thinking of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-02 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag/> and draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/>. For ISIS, it looks like the similar draft only provides for prefix attributes and not link ones. Regards, Alia > 5) In Sec 6.2.8: "The bandwidth criteria of the policy framework SHOULD > work in two > ways" Please expand to "at least two ways" - there are other > strategies as well that might be reasonable and no standardization reason > to rule them out. > > [SLI] Agree, fixed > > Nits: > a) Introduction needs to be the first section. Terminology can follow. > > [SLI] Fixed > > b) Remote LFA reference needs updating to RFC 7490. I think, given > some of the details in this draft, that it should be a normative reference. > > [SLI] Fixed. > > > > Thanks for the good work, > Alia > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
