Hi Mike, Thanks for the review again. Please see resolutions inline.
Regards, -Pushpasis On 10/13/15, 3:39 PM, "Mike Shand" <[email protected]> wrote: >Pushpasis, > >That looks fine. Just a few trivial comments that don't seem to have >been addressed. > >I'll be interested to see how this progresses. > > >para under figure 2 line 3 > >I still think it should say Extended P-space of S and Q-space of E >(w.r.t. S-E link). [Pushpasis] I see that this has been already addressed in 03 version. So I assume I don’t have to take care of it anymore. :) > >i.e. make it clear that it is the extended P-space OF S that we are >talking about. > > >introduction para 1 line 2 > >I still think guarantee is better than guarantees here. [Pushpasis] Will rectify in next version. > >par 4 line 2 > >"procedure is extended" [Pushpasis] Will rectify in next version. > > >2. Node protection with remote-LFA >para 1 line 7 > >a essential -> essential [Pushpasis] Will rectify in next version. > >2.3. computing node-protecting R-LFA path >para 2 >it's ->its > >and another one that seems to have crept in > >2.3.3 Limiting extra... >para 3 line 4 > >it's->its [Pushpasis] Will rectify all in next version. > >That's all > >Mike > > > >On 06/10/2015 16:52, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> I have uploaded version 03 addressing all your comments. Please review and >> let me know if there any more comments. >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> -Pushpasis >> >> >> >> >> On 10/6/15, 9:18 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of [email protected]" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group >>> of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability >>> Authors : Pushpasis Sarkar >>> Shraddha Hegde >>> Chris Bowers >>> Hannes Gredler >>> Stephane Litkowski >>> Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03.txt >>> Pages : 16 >>> Date : 2015-10-06 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA >>> [RFC7490] specification guarantees only link-protection. The >>> resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not >>> guarantee node-protection for all destinations being protected by it. >>> >>> This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node >>> provides node-protection for a specific destination or not. The >>> document also shows how the same procedure can be utilised for >>> collection of complete characteristics for alternate paths. >>> Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is >>> precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not >>> fitting constraints. >>> >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/ >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03 >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtgwg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
