Hi Mike, I have addressed all the comments I have received so far. Here is the updated version of the draft.
Thanks -Pushpasis On 10/14/15, 3:19 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04.txt >has been successfully submitted by Pushpasis Sarkar and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection >Revision: 04 >Title: Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability >Document date: 2015-10-14 >Group: rtgwg >Pages: 16 >URL: >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04.txt >Status: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/ >Htmlized: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04 >Diff: >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04 > >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. > > > > > > >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 > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
