Hi Benoit, Many many thanks for your review comments. Please find answers inline...
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: Discuss > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This document mentions manageability in his title. Hence my special > focus. > I'm with Eric Vyncke here. His OPS DIR review is: > > Not being an expert in LFA, the review focus was only on operation. > And, due to the density and specialization of the I-D, I would like to > ask the authors whether they read RFC 5706 about 'ops and mgmt > guidelines', i.e., to check whether this I-D considered migration from an > existing LFA to the new one, interoperations with previous LFA and how > correct operations can be verified. > As the core topic is about loop-free alternates, we can assume that fault > management and operations are at the core of this I-D. But, I encourage > the authors to quickly review their document with RFC 5706 in mind. > > After reading the document (and with basic knowledge of RLFA), I'm unable > to tell at this point if RFC 7916 is still valid for this new > functionality, if it needs to be updated, or even if > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node- > protection-10#section-3 > is complete in light of RFC 5706. I'll be watching the discussion with > interest. > > [Pushpasis] I have provided an elaborate explanation in reply to OPS DIR review comments from Eric. Request you to please refer to that.. :) And please let us know if we are missing anything specific here.. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - The resulting Remote-LFA > alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-nodes) may not > provide > node-protection for all destinations covered by the same, in case of > failure of the primary nexthop node. > > Covered by the same? > [Pushpasis] The reference here is to the PQ-node computed using RFC7490 specification which only gaurantees protection against failure of first-hop link and not against failure of first-hop node(or router).. I will try to change the text to clarify this.. > > - There are also some nits and typos such as " uitilized" in the > abstract. > [Pushpasis] I will take care of this in a next version shortly. Thanks once again and Regards, -Pushpasis
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
