Hi Mirja, Thanks a lot for the comments. And sorry for not being able to reply earlier. Please find some comments inline.
Thanks -Pushpasis On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Overall comment: This reads rather like an informational rfc; however > given that rfc7490 is standards track, I guess that's fine. > > More specific comments: > - More abbreviations could be spelled out to make it easier to read. > [Pushpasis] I will try to add as many as I can in the next version :) > - Not sure what section 3 tells me; but I'm also not an expert. > [Pushpasis] Section 3 is about a using the same solution proposed to find a node-protected R-LFA path by running a forward-SPF on the PQ node(s) to select parameters of the same paths discovered, so that the computing router on discovering multiple R-LFA backup paths to a single destination can run some backup-path-selection policies on the same path parameters collected (while doing computing F-SPF) to select one or more best suited R-LFA backup paths for the destination. Hope it explains :) You may also want to refer to RFC7916 for more explanation. - Also section 3: "As already specified in Section 2.3.4 to limit the > computational > overhead of the proposed approach, forward SPF computations MUST be > run on a selected subset from the entire set of PQ-nodes computed in > the network, with a finite limit on the number of PQ-nodes in the > subset." > I guess you don't need the upper case MUST here. > [Pushpasis] Actually this was suggested to be exactly a MUST in WG discussions on the WG mail > - Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the > approach proposed, this > document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the > entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit > on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset." > Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem > inaccurate. > [Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then? > - And also section 2.3.4: Could you maybe suggest or discuss an > appropriate default value? > [Pushpasis] I have myself implemented it for Juniper and the default value as 16. I can specify the same as a suggested default. But I am not sure it will be raise any concern in the WG or not. If you suggest, I can go ahead and put this in the next version. Thanks once again -Pushpasis
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
