On 1/19/2017 12:05 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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
<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/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
<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?
my point is: aren't you missing a word after "by the same"?
Regards, B.
[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
