RTGWG & Stephane, Thank you very much for the thorough and clear addressing of my technical concerns. I would strongly urge others in the working group to read through the updated draft. The changes are clarifications of the appropriate behavior - but I am interested in being certain that he updates are seen by the working group.
PLEASE send any comments or concerns or that it looks good to you in the next week. I may hold the draft in AD Follow-up for a few days (not past the end of June) if I don't see that the WG has seen these changes. Basically, I don't think that they are technical changes such that it's necessary to go back through the last call process - but they are significantly more than merely editorial, so I would be more comfortable with others doing a quick review also. Thanks, Alia On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:09 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > I just posted the version 9. For the moment, I kept the six (co-)authors. > As I explained, everyone did more than just contributing and there was a > strong involvement on draft text and specification, so it would be > wonderful if you can agree to keep all of them. > > > > Hope the modified text will fit your comments. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephane > > ------------------ > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Stephane Litkowski and posted to the > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability > > Revision: 09 > > Title: Operational management of Loop Free Alternates > > Document date: 2015-06-19 > > Group: rtgwg > > Pages: 28 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09 > > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-09 > > > > Abstract: > > Loop Free Alternates (LFA), as defined in RFC 5286 is an IP Fast > > ReRoute (IP FRR) mechanism enabling traffic protection for IP traffic > > (and MPLS LDP traffic by extension). Following first deployment > > experiences, this document provides operational feedback on LFA, > > highlights some limitations, and proposes a set of refinements to > > address those limitations. It also proposes required management > > specifications. > > > > This proposal is also applicable to remote LFA solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2015 20:11 > *To:* LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability > > > > Just a quick reminder - but an updated draft is needed by tomorrow to > address these issues. > > Otherwise, I will have to remove the draft from the telechat on June 25 > and postpone it until June 9, > > assuming the draft is updated next week. > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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
