Hi Uma, Many thanks for the comments..
For the clarification for everyone, the following text in section 2.3.4 already mention about the knob you requested.. " Implementations MUST choose a default value for this limit and may provide user with a configuration knob to override the default limit. Implementations MUST also evaluate some default preference criteria while considering a PQ-node in this subset. Finally, implementations MAY also allow the user to override the default preference criteria, by providing a policy configuration for the same. " So there is two knobs this document specifies.. - A knob to set the limit to the number of nodes in the subset of PQ-nodes. - A policy configuration to let user control which nodes will go in the subset of PQ-nodes Thanks -Pushpasis On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> wrote: > One quick comment below [Uma]: > > > > -- > > Uma C. > > > > *From:* rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Pushpasis > Sarkar > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:39 AM > *To:* Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; rtgwg-chairs < > [email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on > draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Mirja, > > > > Thanks for your comments once again.. Please find some more answers inline > > > > -Pushpasis > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Pushpasis, > > thank for your replies. Please see below! > > Mirja > > On 18.01.2017 03:42, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: > > 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] > > <mailto:[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 > <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/ > <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. > > > Still not clear to me. Anyway I'm not an expert and maybe I'm missing > something. Or let me ask the questions differently: What does this part add > to the rest of the doc and why is this a separate section? > > [Pushpasis] The solution proposed to solve the first problem in section 2 > (i.e. ensuring node-protection with R-LFA) can also be extended to solve > another problem (i.e. collecting parameters used by > backup-selection-algorithm RFC7916 wrt to R-LFA backup paths (this is more > detailed in section 6.2.5.4 of RFC7916). Since the same solution in a > extended form also solved a separate but related problem, this was curved > out as separate section. In summary this document proposes to two separate > but related problems and hence two different sections.. Hope I could > answer this satisfactorily this time.. :) > > > > > > > - 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 > > > My point was, given this is a MUST in section 2.3.4 and this sentence > starts with "As already specified in Section 2.3.4" it does have to be an > upper case MUST here again (because it's correctly normatively specified in > section 2.3.4). However not a big issue. > > [Pushpasis] Got it. Will do so.. > > > > > > > - 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. > > > If you think this could raise any concerns in the wg, you should go back > to the wg mailing list and ask for feedback/confirmation. > > [Pushpasis] I dont think it will raise a concern. Just wanted to avoid > unwarranted discussion.. :) Anyways I will provide some text in the next > version and ask WG to let know any comments or opinion. > > > > [Uma]: It’s important to have a knob here and as long as this is there > it’s fine (and this aspect is clearly described). This purely depends on > how big the ring is but this sounds fine. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > -Pushpasis > > > > > > > Thanks once again > -Pushpasis > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
